All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (unfair sentencing) on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 39 million) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) also requires the victim D to receive a discount of bill by breaking the transaction performance, and ultimately, it is only one of a series of processes for deceiving the victim to arrange a loan by deceiving the victim and receiving the loan and arranging the loan, and the defendant and the victim receive the loan. In light of the text messages (Evidence No. 22-55 page of the evidence record), it can be clearly confirmed that the defendant has to pay the victim the money under the pretext of the loan fee or loan.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court: (a) by deceiving the Defendant as to ① KRW 5 million on September 26, 2013, ② KRW 10 million on September 27, 2013, ③ fraud as to KRW 25 million on September 30, 2013, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; or (b) obtained each of the said money on the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of executives and employees of the financial company, etc.; or (c) by deceiving the Defendant to obtain each of the said money; or (d) received each of the said money

The court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to determine the person. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In full, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for the determination.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant received part of the discount amount of electronic bills issued by the defendant for processing from D.

However, this part of the defendant deceiving D.