All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts as to the acquitted portion, misunderstanding the legal principles, and ① the Defendant concluded a monopoly contract on the supply of home fluor gift certificates by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

The fact of deception can be sufficiently recognized according to the statements, etc. of the victim and H, which constitutes deception of fraud.

② The Defendant’s instant business is solely based on multi-level multi-level solicitation for subordinate members with the possibility of success or expected profits, and is not a model that creates separate profits.

Sub-member recruitment is difficult to pay more than 10 times within 6 months, and 25,00 card members belonging to the total number of card holders charged with each pre-paid card amount (500,000) as stated in the judgment of the first instance court did not actually occur, and it is not possible to occur. As such, the first instance court may generate profits in the business of this case on the basis of family circumstances where the defendant's theoretical explanation is realized.

The judgment is erroneous.

Therefore, the defendant can make profits to the victim at least 10 times within six months.

The explanation of “the act of deception” constitutes deception of fraud.

2) The punishment for one of the following reasons is unfair: (a) the punishment for an unfair determination of sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1 was guilty at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the injured party on August 20, 2014; D had a claim of KRW 30 million or more for the purchase of goods; and continued various projects. The Defendant held shares of KRW 40 million ( KRW 50,000 per share). However, Defendant was capable of repaying borrowed money, and thus, is not guilty.

2) The punishment for one of the unfair sentencing factors is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. To closely examine the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine in light of the record.