All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows.

① In light of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B had the ability to repay money from the victims at the time of borrowing money; and (b) Defendant B had the intent to repay money to the victims; and (c) had the intent to repay money to the victims, the court below determined that Defendant B had no intent to have the ability to repay money and to have the intent to repay money to the victims, taking into account the following: (a) Defendant B had the ability to hold a creditors meeting and use H hotel up to the end by making a best effort to grasp the debts; (b) additionally paid the money of KRW 494,00,000 as the existing debt repayment and operating expenses; (c) provided the housing as security to repay the debts; and (d) the victims had known the existence of the housing in the name of

② Since Defendant B believed that he could perform his obligation with the belief of his own financial power without the mold, the lower court did not recognize the willful negligence of defraudation, but did not have any negligence with respect to Defendant B.

The decision was determined.

③ Defendant B is merely a patient with a mental disorder, such as stimulative disorder, dependence disorder, etc., who is a co-defendant under the direction of Defendant A, and thus, is in co-defendants with Defendant A.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendants are in a joint principal relationship.

The decision was determined.

④ The lower court determined that it was evident that Defendant B had made a specific false statement to the victim N andO while reliance only on the close victims and joint Defendant A’s unilateral statement.

⑤ Although each individual's intention should be judged, it is recognized that there is a criminal intention of defraudation, such as co-defendant A, and the intention was used exclusively for another person.

(ii)..