All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 was paid in full for the following reasons: (i) out of the money entered in the list of crimes that the Defendant received (2016 high group 4599), KRW 10,50,00 of the daily list of crimes (1,7-9,14,17,18,21, 22, 26, and 24 of the crime list and KRW 10,50,000 of the 24 were borrowed for the use of the FF’s operational fund, etc.; (ii) the crime list No. 19, 20 of the 2016 table was remitted and remitted; (iii) the crime list No. 2-6,10, 11-13 was obtained in return for granting the right to sell mobile X-ray; and (iv) the crime list No. 15, 16, 23, and 25 of the list of crimes was obtained for the production of a large X-ray of medical equipment.

The court below convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged even though he did not have the intention of deception or deception, that the money entered in the crime sight list received by the defendant was entirely mixed with several nominal money, not borrowed money, and even though he did not have the intention of deception or deception. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact by deceiving the victim E and deceiving the borrowed money, and the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, it can be recognized that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim D, obtained money as stated in the list of crimes.

The decision was determined.

(1) The aggrieved party shall start with the Defendant from the time when he/she entered into an agency contract for the sale of EXE monopoly on June 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with K run by himself/herself and F operated by the Defendant.