All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A ( Imprisonment with prison labor of four years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant B’s 2016 order 4527 ordered 2016 ordered Defendant B did not receive money as a down payment for the purchase of the land of the business site of the business site of the business site of the business site of the business site of the business site of the business site of the company I (hereinafter “I”) from the victim K and explained the circumstances to the victim K, and returned KRW 1.291 million from the victim K to the victim K as it borrowed KRW 334 million from the victim K as the operating expenses.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The 2017 Highest 507 Highest 507 case I was awarded a successful bid for the iron plate and scrap iron normally from Co., Ltd. V (hereinafter “V”), and the victim W was well aware of the circumstances, and thus, Defendant B did not deceive the above victim. Rather, Defendant B did not perform a contract entered into between I and V due to the termination of a successful bid contract between I and V because I did not make an additional deposit on the wind of delayed payment by the victim W.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence adopted by the first instance court related to the case of the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in this part.