All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is recognized that the victim was damaged due to the mistake of facts, there was no intention to acquire the victim by deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, in particular, the investigation agency’s statement to the effect that “K is a company dealing with mountain ginseng and no construction work has been performed, and no construction work has been executed with C,” claiming that the Defendants are the party to the F construction contract, the actual manager of K, which is the party to the F construction contract.”

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendants.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.