All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (misunderstanding of facts) prepared a letter of performance of the business agreement under the name of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “the letter of performance of the instant agreement”) under the agreement with D, but the lower court, without authority, committed forgery and use of the letter of performance of the instant agreement without authority.

As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 3 million for each of the Defendants) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

1) D, the representative director of E, consistently, did not prepare a letter of performance of the instant agreement, and Defendant A received a total of KRW 350 million from December 24, 2013 to August 2014. However, the said money was stated to be borrowed from Defendant A (Article 87, 88 of the evidence record, page 61, 62 of the trial record, page 2 of the trial record, page 61, 62 of the trial record, and page 2 of the trial record). D did not receive the above money from Defendant A for that reason, stating that “In light of the relationship between Defendant B and the Defendant, who is one of the parties, and the Defendant A, it was thought that Defendant A would receive money in good faith, and that Defendant A received money from Defendant B through evidence borrowed from Defendant A (which is the page 3 of the examination record), even if Defendant B and Defendant A received money from Defendant A around 2014 through evidence borrowed from the other party’s account.