All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding of facts) merely received the export payment to the account of this case for the purpose of exporting the clothing with the introduction of a customer via the joint Defendant A through the joint Defendant A, and did not know that the joint Defendant A conspireds with the joint Defendant A or was to receive money by unlawful means, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. In full view of all the sentencing conditions on the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the crime of this case in question is highly intelligent, planned, and international crime, the crime of this case is not likely to be the quality of the crime, the amount of fraud amount to US$ 90,00,00, and the amount of damage amount is not small, and the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., even though considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's confession during the trial, the defendant's confession is recognized and against his mistake, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in Korea, and the proceeds of the crime were recovered to the victim, even if the circumstances favorable to the defendant are considered, the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines determined by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee (the punishment period of the Supreme Court is within 9 months to 3 years: systematic fraud, and the special mitigation area, special mitigation area, where the risk of damage has not been significantly involved).

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. The Defendants asserted as above in the lower court as to the grounds for appeal by Defendants B and C, and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the allegations by the Defendants and their defense counsel.