All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Notwithstanding the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles on the summary of the grounds of appeal, which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case.

In fact, the Defendant involved in the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, as indicated in the judgment below, mediated the gold transaction owned by the Thai-gu Office (hereinafter “the gold transaction in this case”).

The defendant did not deceiving the victim B with respect to the gold transaction of this case.

The Defendant, under the lead of AT that is a partner, engaged only in the business of purchasing Laos (hereinafter referred to as “the business of purchasing the instant gold bullion”).

If the purchase business of the gold River of this case is false, the defendant would also be deceiving AT.

Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim B regarding the instant business of purchasing the gold River.

Among this part of the facts constituting the crime, it is limited to "the list of crimes" in the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment below.

(1) “1. Expenses incurred in opening the Hong Kong Account and Guarantee Finance” are only arising from the transactional relationship between the victim B and the net AU, and are not related to the Defendant.

The Defendant did not receive “30 million won in cash” as indicated in No. 9 No. 1 of the crime sight table (1) “2.5 million won in cash” and “the name of the purchase of the Lao Geum River and the down payment of equipment” as indicated in No. 6 of the crime sight table (2.5 million won in cash).

The defendant related to the crime No. 3 of the judgment of the court below did not promote the J business, and there was no fact that he received activity expenses by deceiving the victim AV as if he had induced investment.

The court below rejected a legitimate witness application to prove the defendant's innocence, thereby infringing the defendant's right of defense.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below (unfair sentencing) is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

The defendant's mistake of facts.