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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not say that the victim could be secured by securing 30,000 square meters of the project site in Vietnam within the number of days.

The victim invested 2.5 billion won through the due diligence work of the accounting corporation, and the victim was fully aware that the above project site was at a business stage that could not be secured.

Of the subscription contract for convertible bonds, the part concerning security is merely a clause in which the victim formally enters in order to use or preferentially purchase 30,000 square meters when the project is completed in the future.

Therefore, the Defendants did not deceiving the victim.

B. The prosecutor’s sentencing (the sentencing of the court below (the sentencing of the defendant A: the two-year suspended sentence; the three-year suspended sentence; the two-year suspended sentence in the one and half years sentenced to the one and half years suspended sentence) is deemed to be too unfor

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the E (State), and the defendant B as the wife of the defendant A, who was the executive director of E (State).

While the Defendants were operating E in the Gangnam-gu Seoul F Building from the end of 2001 to the end of 2007, their management has deteriorated, and on December 31, 2007, the standard debt of 40 billion won (30 billion won in assets) and net loss of the current year up to 3.787 billion won, while on the other hand, the net loss up to 3.7 billion won in the number of construction projects over the first half of 2008, which are merely 1/5 of the target value of the target value (Maintenance of the status that the main volume should be equivalent to 20 billion won), the financial situation has deteriorated, and as a result, there was a shortage of money to be used for the payment, etc. of the existing construction cost to the subcontractor business, the Defendants were to raise money by requesting the victims G (the state) who were known to the regular business entity in Pyeongtaek to receive funds from the victim G by receiving investments from the victim G.

Accordingly, around May 20, 2008, Defendant B requested H to arrange for the hosting of the victim G (owner) representative director I and Defendant A by telephone, and the Defendants also requested on May 26, 2008.