1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, 152 million won out of the Defendant’s check 300 million won is not criminal proceeds since the Defendant received the attempted amount of money supplied by the Defendant to a multi-level business entity E and the money individually invested in E. Thus, this part does not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below finding the Defendant guilty of this part. 2) Regarding the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the Defendant’s act of cash exchange around October 31, 2008, the statute of limitations has already lapsed seven years before the prosecution of this case, and the subsequent act of issuing negotiable certificates of deposit, the issuance of certificates of deposit in another’s name, and the deposit in another’s account constitutes an act of issuing certificates of deposit after November 5, 2008 and thus cannot be punished separately.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and thus unfair. (B) With regard to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by the Defendant’s role and performance of duties, it is recognized that the principal offender did not obstruct police investigations, etc., and that the principal offender expanded and continued the crime. The Defendant’s role and performance of business affairs are sufficient to evaluate the principal offender’s multi-stage fraud as an intangible or mental aiding and abetting act, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant,

2 The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) mistake of facts by the defendant; and