All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1 merely provided that the Defendant merely provided a loan to the victim as the operating expenses of the executive company while introducing the event. Although the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the defendant B's assertion of mistake of facts was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below explained the specific and consistent statement of the victim who corresponds to the facts charged, the confession statement of the defendant A, and the fact that the defendant B demanded the victim to lend money directly to the victim, which are consistent with the facts charged, and recognized the fraud conspiracy relation of the defendant B. The judgment of the court below is just in comparison with the record and closely examined the above judgment of the court below.

Defendant

B asserts that the victim introduced the events operated by Defendant A, but it is difficult to accept the above argument of Defendant B, taking into account various circumstances, including the fact that Defendant B requested the victim to lend money to the victim and received money directly from the victim, and the victim remitted money to the passbook in the name of Defendant B’s spouse. Rather, Defendant B appears to have committed most of the instant fraud crimes.

B. A. Defendant A was unable to pay an intermediate payment of KRW 4.9 billion to the landowner of the new building in this case, in various circumstances published by the lower court.