All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A was the sole criminal conduct of Defendant B in this case, and Defendant A did not participate in the fraud of Defendant B. 2) Defendant B was supplied with the goods according to the direction of Defendant B. Defendant B was believed to have been able to repay to K, and thus there was no intention of fraud. Even if fraud is recognized, it constitutes aiding and abetting crimes.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants made a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds of appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail by providing detailed explanation of the Defendants’ assertion and its judgment on the part of “judgment on the Defendant’s argument” not more than 6 pages of the said judgment. If the lower court’s judgment is closely examined with the evidence duly adopted and examined, it can be justified in its judgment. The lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and the statements of the witnesses Z and AF do not interfere with the recognition of the above facts constituting an offense. Thus, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The crime of unfair sentencing in this case was committed by Defendant A, the representative director of K, and Defendant B, as employees in charge of the business of the above company, aware that K could not pay the goods in excess of its obligations, and it was also aware that the supplied goods were disposed of as dumping and obtained by deceiving victims, even if they were to be used for the repayment of other obligations or living expenses, etc., and the damage amount is considerably larger than one billion won, and thus, the crime is not committed.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not recognize their mistake, and even in the case of the party, are still arguing that they are the single criminal conduct of the other party, and the Defendants B agree with some victims.