All appeals by the defendant against the judgment below are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire the money of the victim as well as the fact that he was given money to the victim B for solicitation or mediation.

B. misunderstanding of facts related to the second judgment and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant received KRW 27 million from the victim F was not accused of the victim in the course of borrowing money as a loan, not a golf loan payment, and there was no deception, and at the time there was a capacity and intent to repay.

C. Each judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing (as to the judgment of the court of first instance: fine of KRW 5 million, penalty of KRW 6 million, and penalty of KRW 2: Imprisonment with labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to ex officio destruction was consolidated in the trial, but the punishment of the court of first instance is a fine, and the punishment of the court of second instance is imprisonment with prison labor of different types, and the punishment of each crime in the judgment of the court of first and second instances is not a single sentence. Thus, the judgment of the court of second instance is not a case where a single sentence is punished.

Therefore, this paper examines the grounds for appeal against each judgment below.

B. In light of the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court based on the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s judgment on the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first instance judgment is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is maintained in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the time of closing argument in the appellate court.