Part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Punishment for B shall be one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: Unfair sentencing. B

Defendant

B: Error of mistake (the defendant A was never aware of obtaining money from the victim H); 2. Judgment of this Court

A. Although Defendant A did not have any particular criminal record, was committed against Defendant A in depth, and returned KRW 13 million to the victim H when the trial was in question, Defendant A had repeatedly committed an act of fraud, etc. against the victim who was in the ordinary trust relationship, and brought Defendant A as co-offenders to Defendant B in order to achieve his/her intent in the process, and the method of his/her intelligent crime was extremely poor, and there is no agreement with the victim yet, and other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime (a significant part of the criminal proceeds, with gambling funds, etc.), and risk of recidivism, etc., the first instance court’s sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three years against Defendant A is too unreasonable (the lower court’s sentencing range (the lower court’s sentencing range in light of the recommendation range of fraud type No. 2 and the above punishment scope of imprisonment with prison labor for two years cannot be accepted; the Defendant’s allegation in this case cannot be accepted).

B. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B, although the first instance court is somewhat inconsistent with Defendant A’s statement regarding the process of using the deceptive money, it cannot reject the credibility of such statement solely on the ground that there are many monetary transactions and the lapse of two years from the date of the crime, etc., and Defendant A consistently stated that Defendant A obtained consent from Defendant B to allow a lessor to engage in her ancillary activities with a lessor through Defendant B. However, the first instance court stated to the effect that the investigative agency is hostile to Defendant B as such date.