The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

except that this judgment.

1. According to the prosecutor’s records on the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the lower judgment on April 26, 2013, and stated only “total” and “the grounds for appeal” in the “scope of appeal” in the petition of appeal as “wholly unfair,” but did not state specific grounds for appeal. Even if the prosecutor received the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records on May 7, 2013, and submitted the grounds for appeal on May 31, 2013 when the statutory period of 20 days elapsed from the date of the service thereof.

However, the above entry in the petition of appeal cannot be deemed a legitimate entry in the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2536, Apr. 24, 2008; 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008). There is no ground for ex officio examination in the lower judgment on the record.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts is that Defendant B lent only the name of the tenant to Defendant A, did not participate in the operation or transfer of the Institute of Public Notice, and Defendant A was refunded the deposit after the transfer of the Institute of Public Notice, and Defendant A did not receive the deposit, and Defendant A did not receive it even some of it, and there was no deception by the victim due to falsity at the time of the above transfer contract of the Institute of Public Notice.

Therefore, Defendant B did not have any conspiracy or participation in the instant fraud crime by Defendant A, and thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant B as an accomplice in the crime of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, community service, 40 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below: ① Defendant B did not merely lend the name of the tenant under the lease agreement to Defendant A, but primarily raised the lease deposit. ②