All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to Defendant H), even though the Defendant was obligated to claim the price purchased by the victim as it is for the victim to act on behalf of the victim CU for the purchase of materials, fraud is established as it is by actively deceivings the victim, and even if the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 175 million against the victim is recognized, it is clear that the Defendant clearly recognized false facts as to the loan amounting to KRW 140 million and filed a lawsuit against the victim, but the lower court (as to the Defendant’s attempted fraud and attempted fraud, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of fraud and attempted fraud (as to the part of the 2015 High Court Decision

B. The lower court’s punishment (as to the Defendants, Defendant H) (as to each of the crimes set forth in the attached Table No. 4 among the crimes set forth in the attached Table No. 2015 order 1354 of the judgment of the lower court), is unreasonable as it is so unfair that it is so unfair that each of the crimes is punished by a fine of KRW 3 million and KRW 5 million per annum of the same crime, and KRW 2016 order 1954 of the judgment, with respect to each of the crimes set forth in the attached Table No. 2016 order 1954 of the same crime, by imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution, one year, Defendant I, J, R, and W: KRW 5,00,000, and KRW 4,000, respectively).

2. Determination

A. On February 2008, Defendant H concluded a contract with the victim for the construction of the HV specialized complex development project among the charges of fraud No. 2013, the judgment of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) of the judgment of the 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2010Mo2013, Defendant H attempted to obtain the difference between the supply price of the goods by means of purchasing the goods directly by the victim and receiving the payment from the victim. However, in fact, Defendant H attempted to obtain the difference in the supply price of the goods.

Defendant

H On March 19, 2008, at the construction site of the “CV Special Complex Development Project” located in Jung-Eup Si, Jung-gu, 2008, the victim CU is “CX”.