All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim B in light of the circumstance of borrowing money from each victim, each victim’s statement, whether the Defendant repaid the money, etc., and did not recognize that the Defendant did not have any intent to repay or ability to repay each money from the victim B, C, and D as of January 27, 2012, and as of January 15, 2013, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In full view of the circumstances such as the character and conduct of the defendant, the number of victims, the scale of damage and the seriousness of the case, etc., the sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. (1) Although Defendant (1) was declared bankrupt and immunity on the claims against victims, the lower court, without reflecting such circumstances, found the fact-finding.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not deception the victim K with deceptive act, and the Defendant did not have the ability to repay when considering the shares of the hotel held by the Defendant, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the victim D on April 27, 2015, the Defendant could not be said to have deceiving the victim D or had no intent to repay or ability to repay, taking into account the circumstances where the Defendant created a collateral security right with respect to the building G and AC of the E building owned by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant, by deceiving the Victim K and the Victim D (the fraud committed on April 27, 2015), acquired money by deception, has erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The Defendant’s defense counsel explicitly withdraws the legal principles regarding the examination of evidence from the date of the first trial. The Defendant’s defense counsel submitted a written statement after the deadline for submission of the grounds of appeal is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the above grounds of appeal). (2) As the economic situation rapidly worsens around 2015, the Defendant’s