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

Defendant

B shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant .

A. In relation to the sole crime of Defendant A, Defendant A received the consideration for the conclusion of the player contract from the victims, and the victims have the ability and authority to make the players of the vocational team into the vocational team.

Since it has been paid in trust, there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud to Defendant A, or there is a relationship between deception and the victim's act of disposal.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) In relation to the joint crime committed by the Defendants, the camp training is not a condition for the conclusion of the non-get player contract, but K’s statement is not reliable, and the Defendants’ criminal intent cannot be recognized by fraud.

In addition, this part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as fraud unless the Defendants’ deception and the victim are specified.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding each of the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendants (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, six months of suspended sentence and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court: (a) paid money from the victims under the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) Defendant A received money from the victims under the pretext of personnel expenses for the conclusion of the player agreement; (c) Defendant used an account in the name of another person, other than the Defendant’s name, or received money in cash to avoid the occurrence of a crime in the course of receiving money; and (c) victims paid money under the pretext of personnel expenses.

In full view of the facts stated, this part of the facts charged was found guilty.

B) The circumstances acknowledged by the lower court are closely examined in light of the records.