All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts does not have any money from B and his family members, and the money, the right to permit the extraction of aggregate, equipment, stocks, etc. received as the result of the settlement of trade funds. Moreover, illegal extraction is limited only under the direction of B, not through public offering. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, one million won of fine, one million won of social service, and 120 hours of imprisonment) is too

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The defendant made the same argument in the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts. The court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant, if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances properly explained by the court below are compared with records.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the assertion of unfair sentencing is also made.

up to the trial of the defendant, the defendant denies the crime of violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act due to conflict and illegal extraction of aggregate, and did not reflect it seriously.

The crime of this case is committed against the victims who died of the father (or husband) of the victims who had been engaged in the business and failed to accurately know about the reality of the business to extract aggregate and the existing process of the business to the victims, thereby threatening them to interfere with the right to receive money and valuables and the right to permit the extraction of aggregate from the victims.

The damage recovery was not made.

This is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant.

On the other hand, the right to permission to extract aggregate and the actual economic value in the case of shares is rather than the victims' assertion.