A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant D’s mistake, if compared with the shipment certificate kept in the materials storage of the victimized company, the sales account book of the victimized company, and the purchase account book of the transaction parties stated in the shipment certificate, it can be recognized that the amount obtained by deception was 621,962,435.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the part 195,180,380 won on the basis of the EX files, etc. that the defendant asserted as intangible transaction and voluntarily prepared and submitted. This is improper.

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle, Defendant E’s part 1) can be acknowledged that the Defendant conspiredd to commit the crime of fraud against the victimized company of D and the crime of acquisition of criminal proceeds.

The court below's decision that this part is only a aiding and abetting is improper.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unfair.2) The Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely lending the Defendant’s cream card under the name of the former AA so that D may manage cash, and there was no perception or intention on D’s fraud and criminal proceeds acquisition. The lower court’s judgment that deemed D as an aiding and abetting offense is unreasonable)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Part 1 on Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts concerning the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts) The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence adopted and investigated by the prosecutor, and excluded the portion of KRW 195,180,380 out of the amount acquired through deceit, on the ground that there is insufficient proof, and the amount of profit is KRW 500 million.