All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and the prosecutor, the court below found Defendant D not guilty of each of the above facts, based on the following reasoning: ① attempted fraud on June 10, 2015 against Defendant D, and ② Defendant A and B-B’s fraud against Victim C on July 11, 2015; however, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants in sentencing (one year of imprisonment; ten months of confiscation; ten months of imprisonment; confiscation; six months of imprisonment; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for six months; two years of suspended execution, observation of protection; and community service order 80 hours in the six months of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. In relation to the crime No. 2-b. of the facts stated in the judgment below, Defendants (1) and C’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) and Defendant A and C’s misunderstanding of facts, the Defendants were merely engaged in simple gambling with W and F, and did not commit fraud in collusion with others as stated in the above facts of crime.

B) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was merely an aiding and abetting a crime by offering a gambling place, and there was no conspiracy for fraud as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

C) Defendant D’s misunderstanding of facts

A. In relation to paragraphs (1) and (2), the Defendant did not commit an attempted fraud, since he/she was fake and stolen to the Defendant.

Criminal facts No. 2- in the judgment of the court below

A. In relation to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Defendant did not know at the time that he was engaged in gambling with A and B, but did not know the fact that he was engaged in gambling with A and B, and there was no fact that he conspireded for gambling with B.

(2) The lower court’s respective punishment against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On June 10, 2015, the lower court, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, directly conforms to each of the facts charged in this part, as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant D’s attempted fraud.