All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Defendant

A1) The proposal for the first transaction to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) in the part of the case of 2014 high-scale 365 case was a side of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

Defendant

A did not deceiving M with the gross sales or terms of transaction of K, and did not know about the relation of ownership of the cable production facilities of K, so there was no intention of deception.

With respect to the details of transactions with N (hereinafter “N”), among the list of crimes set forth in the judgment below, in light of the fact that K received from N, a tax invoice is issued by N rather than M, a fraud with a victim M cannot be established.

Defendant

A has withdrawn from K to the end of February 2013, and therefore, as to the part of the goods supplied by K from M, the Defendant A cannot be held liable for fraud.

The number of blank units that have been returned from M is the provision of adequate security and return.

A person who makes a transaction decision with M, provides security, pays the price, and orders and ships the product are all the defendant B who is the representative director of K, and the defendant A is not involved in it.

B) AA, AD, AG, AJ Co., Ltd., and AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AJ”) in part of the case 2014 high-priced706 case.

As to each transaction with the above defendant B, the above defendant B made all decisions, and the defendant A did not participate in them. The defendant AM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AM").

In relation to the transaction with the above defendant C and B, there was no deception in collusion with them. Of the promissory notes delivered by the defendant B to AM as the price for the goods, the two copies (a total sum of KRW 137,786,000) have been settled and paid, and even if the fraud against the defendant A is recognized, the amount obtained by fraud shall be the above amount.