[Defendant A] The defendant A's appeal is dismissed.

[Defendant B] Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

[Defendant C]

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Documents, such as a written supplement of the grounds for appeal, Defendant’s opinion, defense counsel’s opinion, summary of pleadings, etc., submitted by the Defendants and defense counsel after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, shall be considered to the extent of supplement

Defendant

The large amount of overseas funds held by A, B, and C in fact existed, and some of the overseas inheritance funds of Defendant B were introduced into the Republic of Korea using the money received from the victims as expenses.

Therefore, Defendant A, B, and C did not deceiving victims, and do not intend to commit a crime by fraud to the above Defendants.

① Defendant A merely procured funds through K and has no contact or contact with Defendant C, F, or G.

② Defendant B did not request D, F, and G to raise funds, but only borrowed funds from K, D, F, and G independently without the name of Defendant B, and delivered the funds to Defendant B.

③ Defendant C is merely engaged in the business of remitting funds overseas upon Defendant B’s request, and Defendant C was unaware of the existence of other accomplices and the process of raising funds other than Defendant B.

Therefore, there is no public contest relationship between Defendant A, B, C, K, D, F, G, etc.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in violating the rules of evidence by using it as evidence for finding facts, even though Defendant B did not undergo legitimate evidence investigation, such as the certificate of tax payment under the name of the National Tax Service of the United States, the English High Court's judgment, the balance certificate, the monthly banking's N's identification number, passport, etc. submitted by the U.S. National Tax Service to clarify the existence of overseas inheritance funds.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A, B, and C (the 4 years of imprisonment, the 6 years of imprisonment, and the 4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.