All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act stated in the crime No. 11 of the annexed Table No. 1 of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant A and C (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants could not be deemed to have engaged in foreign exchange business under the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act even though they transported KRW 1 billion to N who does not have any intention to exchange, and the Defendants could not be deemed to have engaged in foreign exchange business under the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, while recognizing this part of the facts charged as a violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act along with the remainder of the facts charged.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (i) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that he had to register separately in order to engage in foreign exchange business, and Defendant C and A was aware that he had to engage in legitimate foreign exchange business, and there was no awareness that he had to deal with unregistered foreign exchange business subject to punishment. Therefore, there was no intention of the principal offender to have had to have been employed as an aiding and abetting.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor’s (i) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (not guilty part against Defendant A and C), and the nature of the telephone financial fraud organization, and even if there was no direct conspiracy between subordinate staff members, it can be sufficiently explicit and implied conspiracy and the fact of participation in criminal conduct, despite the fact that there was no direct conspiracy between subordinate staff members, it can be acknowledged that the above Defendants’ conspiracy is recognized.