All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (i) The sum total of KRW 80,00,000 from Nos. 1 and 2 of the crime list No. 1 and 80,000,000 as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court, was used individually by Defendant B in connection with the foreign capital inducement project, and the sum total of KRW 12 to 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the damaged party

See Dol Sentencing 1 Deliberation Punishment ( Imprisonment with prison labor, 1 year and 6 months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The first deliberation punishment of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D. (1) misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Defendant D did not invite any other Defendants to commit the instant crime, and did not participate in deception.

Even if the person participated in the crime,

Even if it is the aiding and abetting crime, I think that the first deliberation punishment (10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B, D, and C, deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, thereby deceiving the victim in sum KRW 1 and KRW 80,000,000,00 in the attached list 1 and 2 of the crimes committed in the judgment of the first instance as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, and obtain additional fraud of KRW 7,50,000,000,000 in total for the same crime list Nos. 12 and 20,000 in the name of the expenses necessary for the

Defendant

A’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant D’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant D asserted the same purport in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected Defendant D’s assertion by stating in detail the determination of the Defendants’ defense counsel’ assertion in the first instance judgment under the title “determination of the Defendants’ defense counsel’s assertion” in the second instance judgment, and under the joint recognition of Defendant D with other Defendants, the important role of the instant fraud crime is to be committed.