Of the judgment of the first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the judgment of the second court on Defendant C shall be respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts (1) and the prosecutor by mistake of facts (the attempted fraud against Defendant A and B), it is evident that KRW 29 million, which was remitted to the account of the victim S in the name of Defendant B, is the name of the Defendant A’s debt repayment.

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on charges of attempted fraud against Defendant A and B, on the premise that the said money cannot be readily concluded that it was remitted as the repayment name of Defendant A’s obligation. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months sentenced to Defendant A and two years sentenced to Defendant C by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (with respect to Defendant A and C) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

B. One year and six months of imprisonment sentenced by the first instance court of Defendant A (unfair form of punishment) to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud against AO) is merely an investment in the judgment that the business feasibility of the Vietnam AP project promoted by Defendant C was outstanding with knowledge of the circumstances that it is difficult for AO to carry out the financial status of Defendant C, and there was no fact that Defendant C deceptiond about its financial status or repayment ability.

Nevertheless, since the second instance court simply recognized the criminal intent of deception and deception based on the financial status of Defendant C and judged guilty of the charge of fraud against AO, it erred in the second instance judgment by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The imprisonment with prison labor of two years sentenced by the first instance court and eight months sentenced by the second instance court to Defendant C of unreasonable sentencing are too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant C and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal against Defendant C prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant C by the prosecutor, respectively, and the trial court against the first instance judgment as to the Defendants and the second lower judgment as to the Defendants C.