All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the crimes of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1 received the sum of KRW 150 million on February 29, 2012 and March 17, 2012, among the crimes of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant determined that there is sufficient collateral value only with the ginseng distribution, which was offered to the victim as security by means of transfer, and that there was no criminal intent to commit fraud, since there was no intention to commit fraud, since the Defendant provided the ginseng distribution of the Republic of Korea, the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, the 17th, the Cheongju-si, the 17th, and the 20

In relation to the crime of fraud around April 2012 in the judgment of the court below among the crimes No. 1 of the judgment below, since the ginseng distribution, and the ginseng distribution of three and five and five and five parcels, which the defendant provided as security by means of transfer, by borrowing additional money, was disposed of after obtaining consent from the victim, there was no intention to obtain fraud.

B) As to the crime No. 2 of the decision of the court below, since the defendant was unaware of the existence of an indication in the line of duty, the defendant did not have any intention to have an invalidation of an indication in the line of duty. (C) As to the crime No. 3 of the decision of the court below, the defendant disposed of Cheongju-si Petition Q, R, M Ginseng, Cheongju-si Petition S, N, T, U Ginseng (hereinafter collectively “G et al.”) to H on December 2, 2011, but the defendant has no intention to commit a crime by deception, but has no intention to obtain the down payment, such as G, etc. on October 17, 2013.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment is too uneasible and unfair).

2. Determination

A. As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as the above grounds for appeal at the court below, and the court below.