All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The determination of the Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (in 10 months) is unreasonable.

B. The transfer of money by a prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, violation of law, and sentencing) to KRW 36190,00 constitutes an act that disguises the acquisition of criminal proceeds.

The amount of punishment imposed is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and violation of law did not fall under Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and Article 1 (o) of the attached Table 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds, and remitted money on the grounds as stated in the judgment below.

It was determined that the acquisition of criminal proceeds could not be considered as the disguised disposition.

In order to constitute criminal proceeds, the interpretation of the lower court’s law that the value of the property acquired through the criminal act in fraud should be more than 30 million won but less than 500 million won is justifiable

To be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, it is necessary to prove that the remittance amount stated in the statement of crimes attached to the original judgment is the criminal proceeds acquired through the criminal act of fraud between KRW 300 million and KRW 500 million.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not prove that the crime proceeds acquired through the criminal act of fraud between KRW 300,000 and KRW 500,000 (the value of property is less than KRW 300,000) (The re-amounts 12 through 14, and 19 through 37 of the crime list attached to the judgment below is the criminal proceeds acquired through the crime of fraud of KRW 2 through 4,000,000,000 per annum of the crime list attached to the judgment below.

Examining the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by violating the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s decision on the unfair argument of sentencing shall be within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the attached sentencing guidelines (one year and six months through six months).