All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, ① the remainder 1 to 38,40,41 re-payment excluding KRW 2,252,00 deposited by the Defendant’s Hyundai Securities account in the name of the Defendant listed in the [Attachment Table 39] of the lower judgment, and ② the remainder excluding KRW 2,000,000 deposited in the Defendant’s Hyundai Securities Account among the crimes 8 re-crimes listed in the [Attachment Table 8] of the lower judgment, the Defendant offered a public offering as to the remainder of money excluding KRW 2,00,000 deposited in the Defendant’s

In short, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the principal offender or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the fraud against the victim C who was acquitted by the court below), it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspireds to commit the crime by soliciting accomplice Y who served as a liability for withdrawal of interest, which is the name of the account remittance of this part, and the defendant may not be deemed to have escaped from the conspiracy relationship at the time of the crime. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the omission of the conspiracy or conspiracy relation in the joint principal offender, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of this part

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected its assertion in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation cannot be accepted.

B. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1)