All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts committed an error by the victims of misunderstanding of facts at will, without the consent of H’s actual business operators C and Defendant, and upon completion of the interior work, C paid the construction cost, and the victims did not pay the construction cost as they failed to complete the construction work. Therefore, the Defendant did not intend to commit fraud, and the Defendant did not conspired to commit fraud. 2) Taking account of the equity in sentencing with C, the actual business operator of unfair sentencing H burial, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts is merely an employee who has no right to decide on business, and did not intend to commit a crime with A and C, and the victims knew that C would pay the construction cost upon completion of construction within the construction period. Therefore, Defendant B (2) In light of the degree of the participation of the Defendant in unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in October, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too heavy.

C. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles revealed that the contract for the interior contract was concluded between A and the victims only after all the existing burial facilities were removed without the Defendant’s consent, and thereafter, the victims were asked to restore to the original state in good faith, and the victims were not paid the construction cost upon the completion of construction work until July 14, 2011. Since the victims failed to complete construction within the given period, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud, and the Defendant did not conspired to commit fraud. 2) In light of the fact that the instant crime of unfair sentencing was led by A and B, and the Defendant was in the status of hearing impairment of class 3.