The judgment below

Of the judgment against Defendant A, Paragraph 2, 2, 2015, 5, 2015, 214, 2015, 305, 305, 2015, 2015, 305, 2015.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 2014 high 396 Gohap 2014 high 396 Gohap 400 million won, and the remaining KRW 100 million is granted from BM, and the victim is different. Therefore, this part should be considered as simple fraud under each Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles that the lower court committed a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by deeming that the victim V was damaged by the total amount of KRW 500 million.

B) Although the Defendant was delegated with the authority to agree on the AT reputation by the AP and received the funds for the agreement from the victim Q, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as it did not mislead the victim Q, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) Although the Defendant, in collusion with B, did not instruct the disabled persons to interfere with the construction site of the victim Q building in question, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an offense of 1st 2014 high 396 case: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 5 years for the remaining crimes) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing) argued to the effect that Defendant B mainly denied a public contest relationship on September 30, 2016 on the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendant on September 30, 2016. However, Defendant B, at the second trial date, withdrawn all of the allegations of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, and even ex officio, there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the lower court.

The sentence of the lower court (2015 high 133 cases: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The lower court’s judgment against the Defendants by the Prosecutor.