All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants (in fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) received money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, the Defendants merely borrowed money to meet credit conditions in the course of arranging and receiving delinquent taxes, and did not deceiving foreign capital to the effect that foreign capital was immediately taken.

Although it was ex post facto impossible to repay the borrowed money due to the ignorance of the loan, there was no intention to acquire it at the time of the loan.

Even if guilty, the sentence of the lower court (2 years of suspended sentence in August, 200, and fine of 5 million won in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also made the same assertion, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in full view of the circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in comparison with the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the judgment below, there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

We do not accept this part of the Defendants’ assertion.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The instant case did not change any particular sentencing condition compared to the original judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendants and the public prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing appear to have been already reflected in the lower judgment’s sentencing grounds, and other circumstances.