All appeals filed by A, B, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

The transaction of inventory goods between Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and H (hereinafter “H”) does not constitute a false transaction of the actual place of sale made by the method of transferring the ownership of the goods without any movement according to the conclusion of the sales contract, that is, the actual place of sale made by the method of possession amendment.

G It explained that the victim bank had already been stored in the Republic of Korea at the time of filing an application for the issuance of a credit, and the victim bank was well aware of the nature of the contract in this case, so there was no error by the victim bank, and even if the victim bank was unaware of this, the victim bank did not examine only G’s credit limit at the time of the examination of the issuance of the credit due to the independence and abstractness of the credit transaction, and did not examine whether the actual purpose of the transaction was moved. As such, the above defendants did not explain that the transaction between G and H was the last stage of the circulation transaction for the disposal of inventory goods, or they could not be viewed as deceiving even if the content of the Ka Ka ga is false.

In light of the fact that G paid the price due to the issuance of the letter of credit of this case until damages incurred by the rapid increase in exchange rates, at least until the application for the issuance of the letter of credit of this case was made on June 13, 2008, the above Defendants had the intent or ability to pay the price.

Sentencing unfair sentence of the court below (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor of three years and five years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles against Defendant A and B.