All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the charge of attempted fraud against Defendant B by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts), the above Defendant submitted as evidence a contract for a contract amount of KRW 500 million, which was prepared for bank loan by asserting as if the contract was concluded, to the court, even though there was no fact that the contract was concluded with the victim AT by setting the contract amount of KRW 500 million. This constitutes a false assertion and an act of submitting false evidence.

Meanwhile, Defendant B asserted that there exists the construction cost that he should receive additional payment from the victim AT, but in light of the fact that the amount claimed by the above Defendant was not properly specified, the statement by the above Defendant on the amount is inconsistent, the existence of additional construction cost claim was not substantiated even in the case of the objection against related provisional seizure, and the witness AV testified to the effect that the change of the construction work progress is due to the above Defendant’s execution, and thus, the construction cost was to be maintained equally, it is difficult to believe this argument by the above Defendant B as it is.

In the end, although Defendant B should be deemed to have had the intent to commit deception and deception, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A and Defendant Fisheries Company D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), among the facts charged in this case, with respect to the part concerning Defendant A and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), but since the aforementioned Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are common, the part related thereto is referred to as “Defendant A” for convenience, as indicated in this part of the facts charged.