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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In order to collect earth and stones at the time J, the Defendants had clearly explained to the victims the necessary facts, etc. with the approval of the Minister of National Defense, and did not deceiving the victims as if the project would proceed with with the necessary permission for the gathering of earth and stones.

In addition, Defendant B was aware of the victim through the introduction of the title adviser in G, which Defendant A actually manages, and the victim was placed in a restaurant operation contract, not only introduced the victim to Defendant A but also made financial profits from the victim. Thus, there was no fact of deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and B guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Even if a crime of fraud is established against a criminal defendant, the sentencing of the lower court (a prison term of six months for Defendant A; a prison term of two years for suspended execution in six months for Defendant B; and a community service order of 120 hours for 120 hours for imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and on the grounds that “Defendant A and B’s grounds for conviction” was stated in the judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and sentenced the Defendants guilty.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations by the defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.