All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The victim of misunderstanding of facts promised Defendant A to make an investment in the mutual aid project promoted by (ju) E (hereinafter “instant company”), and the said Defendant decided to lease an office of KRW 100 million around February 4, 2010.

After that, the above defendant received 90 million won from the victim, and the owner of the building demanded that the monthly rent be increased instead of lowering the deposit amount to KRW 50 million, and the lease contract was entered into only that content.

Defendant

A There is no fact of deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the crime.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of mistake in the guilty part against Defendant A.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Definite) is the victim’s “The members of the labor-management association related to the business of the mutual aid association are expected to bring to the office, and there is no fact that it is necessary to operate the call center office.”

When the victim remitted KRW 50 million to Defendant B, it was the remittance of the necessary expenses of the State E (hereinafter “instant company”) to proceed with the mutual aid business, and it was not the Defendant B’s deception and remittance.

The judgment below

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

C. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion against the defendant), the representative of the company of this case is the defendant B, and the defendant A received a business plan from the defendant B about the commercial operation and explained the victim of the commercial operation. The defendants did not have any possibility of the commercial operation, the victim invested in the commercial operation promoted by the defendants together, and the victim remitted the money to the victim.