1. All appeals filed by Defendant A, B, and B are dismissed.

2. Defendant C and D of the lower judgment

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to the fee specified in the list of crimes against mistake of facts (2) concerning additional collection, Defendant A and B, from December 17, 2014 to February 6, 2015, Defendant B received a loan from a client under the name of the client, and from March 2015, Defendant B did not receive a loan from the lender, and the amount equivalent to the fee that was paid by the clients was paid in installments from the clients. However, Defendant A and B were detained on October 6, 2015, and the amount equivalent to the fee that was paid by the clients was collected in installments from the clients. Accordingly, Defendant A and B did not receive an amount equivalent to KRW 180,000 from the clients, KRW 180,000,000, KRW 180,000 from the clients, KRW 18,000, KRW 214, and KRW 16,000 from the said clients, Defendant B and Defendant B did not receive an additional collection from the clients.

B. Regarding Defendant C1’s basic salary of KRW 6,00,000 for each month of mistake of facts as to additional collection, the lower court deemed that Defendant C received KRW 6,00,000 for each month in return for the name lending, and calculated the additional collection charges. Defendant C received KRW 6,00,000 for the first or second month, but thereafter 5,670,000 for the first or second month, and thus the additional collection charges should be calculated again. In relation to KRW 50,00 for each case, Defendant C did not pay the said money as value-added tax according to the independent judgment, but rather paid by Defendant C in return for the acceptance of value-added tax from Defendant C and B. Thus, it is unreasonable to collect value-added tax from Defendant C on the acceptance of individual rehabilitation case in accordance with an agreement between Defendant C and the Defendant.