1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant P is the father of R, and Defendant Q is the mother of R.

B. On June 9, 2014, R made a false statement that there is goods eligible for free European travel, even though there is no intent or ability to allow the Plaintiff to travel abroad, and that is, it received KRW 4,00,000 from the Plaintiff as the down payment on June 9, 2014, as well as by deceiving the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) in the same manner, and by deceiving the Plaintiff and the designated parties in the same manner, from around that time to October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff and the designated parties received a total of KRW 286,519,600 from the Plaintiffs and their designated parties as shown in the attached Table 2, as well as from around June 9, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant fraud crime”). C.

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff, Appointed B, V, and W filed a complaint against the Defendants on the charge of fraud, “The Defendants committed the instant fraud in collusion with R.” However, the prosecutor of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office affiliated with the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office did not have any evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of fraud on September 18, 2015, rendering a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendants on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of fraud.

Although both the plaintiff and the appointed parties appealed to the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office, the prosecutor belonging to the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the above appeal on November 24, 2015.

E. On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Appointed B, etc. filed an application for adjudication by this Court No. 2015 Seocho Jae Jae-do865, and on June 13, 2016, the court dismissed all of the applications for adjudication on the above case: “Defendant P, knowing that the instant fraud was committed by R, kept money acquired by R, or aided and abetted R to commit the instant fraud by facilitating entry and withdrawal so that R would not return the amount of damage,” and the court dismissed all of the remaining applications for adjudication against Defendant P and the application for adjudication against Defendant Q.

F. On June 30, 2016, the Prosecutor of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office regarding the foregoing case.