All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the defraudation of the victim F by mistake of fact, the Defendants did not have been awarded a subcontract for the removal of Qa Co., Ltd.’s factory, and even removed the factory.

Even if there was no authority to dispose of scrap iron directly.

It did not inform the victim F of the settlement.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the Defendants, the Defendants in this part of the facts charged are as follows: (a) The Defendants, even though they were the actual representatives of Defendant A P, they were the P representatives and Defendant A, as they were only the representatives of Defendant B, conspired to enter into a contract for supply of scrap metal with the victim F and to receive money from Defendant B’s account.

A) Defendant A, according to the above public offering, was located in E in the region of E located in around November 28, 2012, there is a lack of balance that Defendant A entered into a contract for the removal of Q factory in the region of E in Ma, Sungsung-si, with the victim F.

The remainder of KRW 30 million will be supplied with scrap metal by removing the paper.

After making a false statement, “Contractor B, Defendant A’s agent,” and drafted a supply contract with “Contractor B and Defendant A.”

However, the Defendants did not have any intention or ability to remove Q factory buildings and supply scrap metal, even if they received money, because they did not have concluded the above Q factory building removal contract.

Even so, the Defendants conspired, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, and by deceiving the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant B on the same day, acquired KRW 30 million from the victim.

B) Defendant A, according to the above public offering, is R R at the time of stay at around December 4, 2012.