All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act against the AD bank account among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A was guilty on the ground that Defendant B merely acquired the above access medium directly from the above person in unsound name and did not transfer it again to Defendant B, on the contrary, although Defendant B did not know of the fact that he had taken over the above access medium and then transferred it again to Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged.

B) From October 2015, Defendant A transferred the authority to manage the passbook of criminal proceeds to Defendant B and received only an average of KRW 2.5 million per month, but the lower court collected the remainder of the crime proceeds distributed to the above accomplice B and other accomplices after the above period, on the premise that the remainder of the crime proceeds distributed to Defendant A, even after the above period, belongs to Defendant A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the additional collection of criminal proceeds or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation and additional collection KRW 484,295,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B, as an employee, received wages in the form of a monthly salary from Defendant A and D, and thus, it cannot be collected as criminal proceeds, and even if there is no evidence other than Defendant B’s statement, the lower court also collected the amount calculated on the basis of only the statement. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the collection of criminal proceeds or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 70,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant D introduced Defendant A and B only one of the J and one named “K” with regard to misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.