Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not agree to issue a performance guarantee insurance policy corresponding to the total amount of the investment money with Defendant B and to acquire the investment money by deceiving the victim. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too low, and thus, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances, in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it can be sufficiently assessed that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, by deceiving the victim to issue a performance guarantee insurance policy equivalent to the full amount of investment money as stated in the judgment of the court below, and by deceiving the victim to acquire the investment money from the victim.

Defendant

A’s assertion in this part is without merit.

1) When Defendant B concludes a performance investment contract with the victim, Defendant A is the E Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

It agreed to allow the use of his name, and instead, to receive 15% of the profit of performance.

Since then, Defendant B agreed that Defendant B would issue a performance guarantee insurance policy equivalent to the full amount of 300 million won to the victim as security without Defendant A’s consent in consultation or negotiation for an investment contract with the victim. However, Defendant A became aware that Defendant B agreed to issue a performance guarantee insurance policy to the victim prior to receiving money from the victim, by examining performance investment contract written between Defendant B and the victim.

However, in the light of the property status of Defendant A and himself at the time, Defendant A made the full investment amount to the victim.