All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts on November 23, 201: (a) there was a fact that the Defendant made and made a statement of restricted acts on the part of the owner of the deposit, written consent for payment, written withdrawal of the report of accident, written request for withdrawal of deposit to the victim I on November 23, 201; (b) however, the Defendant only made the name he knew in the course of obtaining the loan, and the documents were used in the fraudulent act; (c) there was no difference between the above Defendant and the name-oriented parties, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (c) In view of the fact that the Defendant was in the position where the Defendant would support his family; (d) there was a circumstance to consider the fact that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime due to the Defendant’s ignorance; (d) the Defendant did not take economic benefits; (e.

B. Defendant B and Defendant B, on November 24, 201, withdrawn KRW 200 million from the national bank account in the name of Defendant A on November 24, 2011. However, the Defendants merely believe that Y (U President or V head, and T head)’s horses were the only Y (U President or T head), and there was no fact that the Defendant and his name-based party participated in the acquisition of money from the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendants of this case’s charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A1’s assertion of mistake, the lower court around November 22, 201, and around 13:00.