All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the fine of 15 million won for defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B, the instant crime committed by F and H was actually established and operated only up to 20 Chinese mining equipment to the Hongcheon Mining Factory, but the victims sold “L mining equipment” or “AG mining equipment” under their own development so that more than 18 foreign currency can be selectively extracted, installed in the Hongcheon Mining Factory, and extracted the specific extraction equipment for each buyer, and acquired the money as the purchase price for the extraction period by paying a certain amount of the extracted virtual currency or by deceiving a specific amount of other virtual currency as if it were paid. Defendant B and H perceived the said fraud, and thereby facilitating it by means of disguised management, etc., of disguised management, etc. of the Hongcheon Mining Plant.

The lower court determined Defendant B’s punishment in consideration of the content and degree of participation in Defendant B’s act of fraud, the status and role of Defendant B in the said act of fraud, the scale of damage and degree of recovery from damage, etc.

Considering that Defendant B’s mistake was recognized in the first instance trial; Defendant B did not have any criminal record exceeding the same criminal record or fine; Defendant B did not have any criminal record beyond the same criminal record or fine; Defendant B’s health appears to be inappropriate; and that there was any family member to support. Taking into account all the circumstances that led to the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, developments and details leading to the instant crime; and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to Defendant C, the instant crime committed by Defendant C was committed with F and H.