All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the supplemental statement of the grounds for appeal and the grounds for unfair sentencing presented after the lapse of the period for appeal are considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds for appeal) the victim F, who delivered 3 million won to the Defendants on January 11, 2008, by the victim F, is an investment in debt collection business. The facts charged in this case and the facts charged in the judgment of the court below on February 23, 2009 by the victim F, the victim G, who delivered 5 million won to the Defendants on August 29, 2008, stated that "the date when the victim delivered 10 million won to the Defendants" is "the date when the victim delivered 10 million won to the Defendants". Accordingly, the Defendants, defense counsel, and witnesses of the first instance court also testified and testify on the premise that "the date of delivery of the above amount is September 23, 2009".

However, in light of the records, it is obvious that the above " September 23, 2009" is a clerical error in the phrase " February 23, 2009."

Therefore, this paper will state the date of the delivery of the above money as " February 23, 2009".

The delivery of KRW 10 million is not a common contribution for operating expenses to participate in the establishment of the actual transport, nor a loan borrowed by the defendants from the victims.

Furthermore, the Defendants paid interest on the F’s investment in the debt collection business of the victim F, and the Defendants are actually establishing and operating the real estate transport in relation to the joint contributions for the establishment of the victims’ real estate transport.

Therefore, the Defendants did not deceiving the victims, and there was no intention to acquire the money of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the funds in this case are borrowed money. It erred by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the Defendants lend money to the victims as the fund for the construction of the real transport is insufficient.