All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A (misunderstanding of facts as to the E-related fraud part of Defendant A) was merely the representative director in the name of the practical affairs, and Defendant A was merely the victim's beliefing that Defendant B's horses were committed by around December 2017, and Defendant B was committed. As such, Defendant A did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud. 2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fraudulent part) and the victims at the time of the contract with the victims, so it was possible to start the Fluco business. Accordingly, Defendant B did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud.

3) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: two years of imprisonment, Defendant B: imprisonment of two years, and Defendant B: imprisonment of two years and six months) is too unreasonable. B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: imprisonment of two years, and Defendant B: imprisonment of two years and six months, respectively, is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and convicted the Defendants of the charges on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A does not have the power to be punished for the same kind of crime of fraud.

However, Defendant A, as the representative director of the E, seems to play a significant role in the instant fraud, and the amount of fraud of the instant fraud crime reaches approximately KRW 500 million.