All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant 1 did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation against the Defendant, since the Defendant received a total of KRW 5450,500,000 from the victim D, by means of the removal of the classical file, and the Defendant received a lecture file, etc. equivalent to the above amount from the victim D, as the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

B) As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, a significant portion of the list of annexed crimes in the judgment of the second instance was disbursed by the defendant for construction costs of the new building of this case, and there was an amount used individually by the defendant.

Even if the defendant paid a considerable amount for the victim T in relation to the instant construction project, and did not receive the payment of construction expenses from the victim T, there remains only the problem of settlement with the victim T, and the defendant embezzled the funds of the victim T.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim T by deceiving the victim T, or uses it by forging the contract for construction work in the name of the victim T.

2) The sentence of each judgment of the court below against the unfair defendant in sentencing (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and imprisonment for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the sentence of the first instance judgment against the prosecutor accused is too unfasible.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment below. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. Each of the judgment below against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the offenses against the defendant should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below can be maintained.