All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment below

Article 347 of the Criminal Code, "Article 347 of the Criminal Code" of 19,20 pages 7.

1. The court below rejected all of the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation at the court below. Since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which rejected the application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (i) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles merely stated that Defendant 1 lent money to J as it is necessary for Defendant 1 to conduct a business, but did not make it clear that the Defendant intended to attract investors or distribute profits. Although there was no sufficient proof as to whether Defendant was aware that the money was B at the time when he received B’s money from J, the lower court found Defendant guilty of all the facts charged against Defendant 2, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.

Dob. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and 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 the legal doctrine, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by deceiving B in the form of an indirect crime through a superior control over the J’s superior intent and by deceiving B of KRW 70 million.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.