All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to the facts charged of “2014 Highest 6685, Defendant A” among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A introduced the instant forest land to Defendant B through a outlined knife to identify the land to be purchased by Defendant B, and received the introduction expenses, and there was no intentional deception of the victim AG.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and four months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) In fact, Defendant B borrowed only the name in the purchase of the instant forest in accordance with Defendant A’s proposal, and there was no intention to deception or deception the victim AG.

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

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges by taking into account the evidence in its holding, on the following grounds: (a) in the dialogue of the recording and the recording on the record attached to the investigation report, Defendant A made a statement to the effect that Defendant A would succeed to the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract; (b) however, the above statement was not true because it was under intimidation and was inevitable; (c) in light of the content of the statement in front and rear and other circumstances, Defendant A was subject to intimidation and was not subject to such intimidation and was in violation of the freedom of decision-making by such intimidation.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, namely, Defendant B’s purchase of the forest of this case from the investigative agency to the lower court’s trial, and if Defendant B lent his name to Defendant B, he developed or disposed of the forest of this case.