The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment) is too unreasonable for Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) to be sentenced.

B. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have conspired with Defendant A to commit a crime of fraud against Victim P as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, but there is an error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. The Prosecutor (in respect of Defendant B, unreasonable sentencing)’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On May 23, 2012, the Defendants: (a) indicated in the facts charged on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles; (b) on May 23, 2012, the Defendant provided that “the victim (“O company”) operating a steel importing company in the name of “G company” office located in the city of Vietnam, Nam-gu, Seoul, provided e-mail with air conditioners to the Hong Kong and Taiwan, thereby supplying air conditioners produced in Ssco; and (c) the Defendants would supply goods within 20 to 30 days from the date of transfer of prepaid money.”

However, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to supply goods even if they entered into a contract for the supply of air conditioners.

As above, the Defendants: (a) signed a contract with the victim to the effect that “The Defendant will deliver them within 20 to 30 days after receiving the advanced payment of the cooling flusium of USD 104,738MT 164,185.08; and (b) from May 25, 2012 as shown in the attached Table “The List of Crimes”.

7. From September 20 to September 20, “G Company’s account number in the name of a national bank opened by the Defendants,” which received USD 238,962, USD 66 cent (Korean KRW 275,000,000), as a down payment, and wrongfully acquired it.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to acquire the property by deceiving the victim.

2. The judgment of the court below.