1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and D concerning Defendant A and D is reversed.

Defendant

A and D shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged in this case, Defendant B did not play a key role in, or do not control functional acts to the extent that the remaining Defendants participated in, the crime by deceiving money from victims as stated in the facts charged in this case, and thus, Defendant B was merely an aiding and abetting offender. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and four years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to Articles 2 and 5 of the facts charged in this case) ① With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) related to H Village and the fraud (Article 2 of the facts charged in this case). Defendant D was merely an aiding and abetting crime since it did not interfere with or control functional acts with Defendant A, etc., and thus, Defendant D was merely an aiding and abetting crime. ② In relation to the attempted fraud related to M village (Article 5 of the facts charged in this case), the fact that Defendant D attempted to commit a crime with respect to the attempted fraud (Article 5 of the facts charged in this case) cannot be deemed to have commenced the commission of fraud, and there was no fact that Defendant D again submitted false data to the

C. Defendant A, C, E, F, and G (F) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant C, and E: Each one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, Defendant F, and G: Each one year and six months of suspension of execution, and two years of suspension of execution with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

The above punishment of the lower court against the Defendants is too uneased and unfair.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above assertion by clearly explaining the judgment in the “judgment on Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion” as stated in the judgment below.

In light of the various circumstances stated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is based on the following circumstances in Section 3(a).