All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, found Defendant A guilty of the charges of fraud in this part, even though the Defendant A had had the intent and ability to defend, at the time of borrowing KRW 29.1 million from the victim E, at the time of Defendant A’s act of deceiving Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (A) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(B) Since the victim P, who was a partner of a dance hall for the crime of embezzlement against the victim P, had already renounced his/her share in the same business, Defendant A transferred the dance hall.

Despite the fact that the crime of embezzlement against the victim P is not established, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges of embezzlement.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

B The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted to the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine against Defendant A (A) on September 30, 2013, the following facts may be acknowledged, taking into account the evidence duly admitted to the crime of defraudation of KRW 29.1 million.

Defendant

A added up to KRW 150 million from victims E and borrowed KRW 2,910,000,000,000,000,000,000 from September 30, 2013, which was 2,90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000

The commitment was undertaken.

However, Defendant A paid only interest for a certain period of time to the victim, but did not fully repay not only the loan amount of KRW 30 million within the agreed period, but also the first loan amount of KRW 150 million.

At the time of the second borrowing, Defendant A did not have any valuable property to repay the borrowed money.