All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing 1) was involved in forging the lease agreement upon request by B, and the Defendant did not agree with B with the intent to invest in the shares with B and with the intent to commit fraud.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The first deliberation punishment of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

It is unfair that each of the first deliberation penalties of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uncompared.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant conspired with B to participate in the event of the above investigation document and the crime of fraud, and in light of the background and role of the Defendant’s participation, and the future progress, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant contributed to each of the above crimes. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is a joint principal offender for the event of the above investigation document and the crime of fraud

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

① The Defendant served as accounting for food processing machinery manufacturers run by B until 200, and served as auction with B from 206 to 2006, and subsequently did not contact with B around 2012, which led to the instant crime. In light of the aforementioned relationship with B, it is not deemed that the Defendant had to comply with B’s unilateral instructions at the time of the instant crime.

(2) B engages in loan business.

S offered real estate as security and obtained a total of KRW 290,000,000 in Q name (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant directly used the above request for a loan, the provision of security, and the execution of a loan.