Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant C and the part against Defendant E and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A, upon the request of Defendant B of the first instance trial, introduced the person who was aware of the fact that “I would have to exchange USD 10,000” was not involved in the above transaction between B and V, and Defendant A did not know that the above USD 10,000 was forged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The first sentence (one year imprisonment) of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the violation of the Telecommunications Business Act among the judgment of the court below of the second instance) Defendant C, as the representative of the AJ (hereinafter “AJ”), merely opened a mobile phone in the name of AJ and provided funds from AM, etc., and it does not mean that Defendant C recommended, arranged, or mediated a contract for the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of a mobile device.

Therefore, Defendant C is in a relationship between the other party to the solicitation, intermediation, and mediation of AM and the other party and the accomplice.

Although this part of the facts charged cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and February, and No. 2: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and eight months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the holding of each forged foreign currency against the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance) did not state that Defendant D would borrow KRW 7 million from Defendant E or that Defendant E would repay the money by disposing of USD 7 million, and that BK (which is called “BL” or “BM” in the Korean language; hereinafter “BK”) would be called “BK”), and it would be different from the other hand to inquire about the authenticity thereof, and it would be asked Defendant C and E to identify the authenticity of USD 7 million.