All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely linked to H and D by the request from the person “D” who was met at the drinking house of Thailand, and did not conspired to commit the instant crime. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted each of the instant charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s determination of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by misapprehending the legal doctrine is unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant may be recognized as having committed a crime of fraud in collusion with H, etc. as stated in each of the instant charges

① Although H testified in the court of the court below to the effect that H’s statement was reversed at the investigative agency’s court, it is more specific and consistent with H’s statement at the investigative agency; H’s legal statement at the court of the court below was reversed with the same content as the Defendant’s defense after multiple interviews with the Defendant’s will; there are no circumstances supporting H’s reversal of the statement as above; H made all confessions in the criminal trial charged for the same crime as the facts charged in the instant case; although the Defendant did not have conspired to commit each of the instant crimes, H has a motive to make a false statement.

In light of the fact that there is no objective circumstance or objective circumstance, H’s statement in the investigative agency is more reliable than the statement in the court below.

(2) The amount of money of KRW 400,000,000 to be deposited by the person first in the Thailand, who is to demand the defendant to deposit the passbook.