The judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court below on the defendant A and the 4.

Defendant

A Articles 1, 3, and 5.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor [the 6 months imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant A and the 8 months imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant AU] sentenced by the second court (the 2th court below's decision) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the first instance court: 2 years of imprisonment; the second month of imprisonment with prison labor for the lower court; the third instance court; the two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the third instance; and the fourth instance court: the imprisonment with prison labor for the fourth month) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant AU 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of fraud among the judgment of the court below of second instance), Defendant AU conspireds with Defendant A and did not have any fact of deceiving AX and did not have the scope of defraudation.

B) The material supplied by Defendant AU is merely equivalent to KRW 66,251,000 at the market price. 2) The imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) sentenced by the second instance court (as to the whole of the judgment below of the second instance) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (Unfairly Undue) Punishments (five million won of fine) sentenced by the court of the third instance is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio judgment (the first, third, and fourth of the judgment of the court below), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A’s 1, 3, and 4, this Court examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A, and this Court tried by combining each of the appeals cases in the first, third, and fourth judgment. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first, third, and fourth of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the first, third,

On November 1, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and a fine of five million won at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 22, 2013 (hereinafter “final judgment of this case”) and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 22, 2013, and the Seoul Southern District Court on April 27, 2018.