1. All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

2. The order for compensation of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) 1-A among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.

All of the crimes described in paragraph (1) are only the sole crimes committed by Defendant B, and the Defendant A did not acquire money from the victims in collusion with them.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) When taking into account the various circumstances with respect to Defendant B (unfair form of punishment): the lower court’s punishment (for fraud against Defendant AC: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months; the remaining crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the content and nature of the instant crime committed by Defendant A, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (i.e.,: (a) Defendant B received a proposal from Defendant A to introduce “if there is any person who is able to find money,” and received a total of KRW 70 million for each of P’s dynamics and AE children’s job placement, and sent the same to Defendant A through O. However, the Defendant A and the other party to whom the first day was designated agreed to the effect that “the payment of money was made to the other party with the money received” was paid KRW 40 million under the pretext of X’s job placement; (b) Defendant B received KRW 70 million under the pretext of job placement; and (c) Defendant B was given KRW 100 million under the pretext of job placement for the police officer’s job placement; and (d) Defendant B was given KRW 100 million under the pretext of Defendant B’s job placement through Y; and (e) Defendant B was given KRW 1400 million under the pretext of the investigation record.