The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 was aware of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the Defendant aids and abets the violation of foreign exchange transaction laws, and there was no awareness that the Defendant aids and abets the crime of fraud. Therefore, the intent of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the crime of fraud is not recognized.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) thought that the Defendant was an agent for money exchange, and did not have dolusent awareness of the fact that he was involved in the crime of fraud, and there is no fact that the Defendant conspiredd with the commission staff for money exchange.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) The lower court acquitted Defendant B of fraud regarding the fraud of the amount of KRW 20 million deposited by the victim GN’s corporate bank account, and the victim G’s 10 million deposited by the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the relationship between the joint principal offender and the Defendants was recognized, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of fraud, by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s respective sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Since an act of aiding and abetting under the relevant legal doctrine refers to a direct and indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender committed a crime, Defendant A’s intentional act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender and the principal offender’s act that constitutes an act that satisfies the requirements for the composition of the principal offender.

However, since such intention is an in-depth fact, if the defendant denies it, it is highly related to the intention by nature of the object.