The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

Punishment for C shall be determined by eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) Of the 30 million won received from Defendant C, 20 million won, which was received from Defendant C as the loan expense of AK and AJ, and delivered it to AK and AJ as it is. Although it should be deducted from the amount of property in breach of trust, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amount of property in breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

(d)

1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the Defendant led to the instant crime by proposing the instant crime to B and C first in order to borrow KRW 200 million from C, and that he received KRW 30 million from C and delivered it to B, the Defendant, as a joint principal offender, is recognized as co-processing doctor and functional control over the instant veterinary act.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too uncomfortable and unfair for all of the Defendants.

2. Reviewing the reasoning for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the lower court, the lower court’s duly admitted and examined evidence reveals that the Defendant appealed from the Gwangju District Court’s Net Branch Branch on February 16, 2017 to the Supreme Court for a period of eight months and one-year suspension of execution for fraud. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court, which was sentenced to dismissal of appeal by the Gwangju District Court, again filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court on September 27, 2017, but the dismissal of the final appeal was

Since the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of this case is in a concurrent relationship between the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts