All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, informed the victim’s executive director M of the actual sales price prior to the date of entering into the instant supply transaction contract, and concluded a supply transaction contract, etc. by investigating and assessing the collateral value on the part of the victim company.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim company regarding the conclusion of the above supply transaction contract, but did not have the intention of deception.

In addition, in the course of operating one J, the victim company did not deceive the victim company of its intent or ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is not the actual operator of J but the consulting service, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the principal offender’s crime.

The Defendants informed the victim company of the actual sale price.

The secured value of the instant P building is sufficient, and the victim company has investigated the secured value by itself and entered into the supply transaction contract of this case.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim company, but did not have the intention of deceiving the defendant, and there is no relation between the defendant's deception and steel product supply.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B asserted that this part of the appeal is the same as the allegation in the lower court, and the lower court.