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

Defendant

A (guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) When an original judgment of mistake is rendered, 1-B.

The Defendant had already entered into an exclusive remaining supply contract with the victim N and Q (referring to steel plates, etc. that can be recycled for the remaining parts after processing steel materials, which are raw materials, for the manufacture of steel structure), as stated in the facts of the crime at the above judgment of the lower court.

However, it was not only to obtain understanding in advance from the O (P) at the time of the conclusion of the remaining agreement with the above victims, but also there was no fact that the remaining supply contract with Q(F) was actually entered into as a contract for financing money with AF and V.

Furthermore, from September 201 to March 201, 201, the Defendant supplied the Victim N with approximately 130 tons of residual resources equivalent to KRW 50 million for the victim R, and approximately 50 tons of residual resources equivalent to KRW 30 million for the victim R, and the Defendant did not supply the remainder after deducting the management right after March 3, 201.

Therefore, at the time of concluding the remaining supply contract with the above victims, there was no intention and ability to supply the remaining victims, and there was no intention to deceive the victims by fraud.

No. 1-C. at the time of the original adjudication.

A Promissory Notes (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes”) indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article (including the exercise of securities fabrication) is a promissory note which is KRW 10 million as indicated in the facts charged at the time of the original adjudication. The Promissory Notes (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes”) leased a blank note from M and delivered it to the said T, upon request by T, X, AF, etc., and upon receipt of the request by T, X, and deliver it to M. Furthermore, X merely endorsed it on the said Promissory Notes, and there was no endorsement by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes”) in KRW 50 million as indicated in paragraph (2) of the same Article is a Promissory Notes borrowed from M when the Defendant is a representative of G. For the purpose of extending the maturity, the Defendant was the F and the Defendant, who was actually authorized to operate G at the time of the extension.