The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the applicant’s application for compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) F, G, H, I, J, K, L, or M’s application for compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “U.S.”) at the early 164, 165, 166, 181, 182, 198, 258, 420). According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation, and the case for the application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

On the other hand, the court below issued a compensation order that "the defendants jointly obtain money from the applicant E to pay the compensation amount of KRW 375,970,000 and delayed damages to the applicant E," in accordance with the applicant E's application for compensation (the Suwon District Court, Ansan Branch, 2017 early 97) and the defendants appealed against this order, which was subject to the judgment of this court.

However, in the case of a request against Defendant A, Defendant A recognized both the crime of fraud against Victim E in the trial of the party, and did not dispute the application for a compensation order, and there is no data to deem that the order for compensation by the court below is illegal, so this part is not judged separately.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (limited to 8 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) only sought money by means of making investments in the real estate-related company of which Defendant A attends, and also borrowed KRW 5 million from the victim E on February 19, 2014, and there was no participation or conspiracy in the crime of defraudation by the victim E.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. At least two relevant legal principles are co-offenders who jointly process crimes.