All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the collection charge against Defendant A shall be 32,340.

1. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts (the part not guilty of the reasoning of the court below against Defendant A)

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the Eul's statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the allegation was not reliable despite its credibility, and thus, it erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. In the event that there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of conviction in the course of the appellate trial’s trial, and there is no clear error in the determination of the value of evidence for the first instance, or there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is remarkably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the determination on the finding of facts under the first instance deliberation shall not be allowed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that B’s statement is not by mistake on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item “not guilty portion”, and there is no other evidence that there is no conviction that the facts charged are true.

Examining the various circumstances cited by the lower court in a thorough and consistent manner with the record, there is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the lower court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

We do not accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower judgment erred by mistake in fact on the premise different from this premise.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it should be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the lower court is new.