All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ) The Defendant did not have any participation in the crime of arranging and taking over bonds with warrants issued by NAN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) (hereinafter “N”), and did not have received money from B, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant partially participated in the commission and taking-off of B related to the receipt of bonds with warrants, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and misunderstanding the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, even though it is not deemed that the Defendant had the intention to jointly process and functional control over the Defendant, and thus, cannot be seen as constituting the aiding and abetting of the above brokerage and taking-off. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, or misapprehending the legal principles, (i) imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes under Article 2012 high-priced549 of the Military Court Decision 2012 high-priced

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant merely conducted a simple introduction by delivering the N’s intention to P, who is an employee of Matz gold, to P with respect to the acquisition of N’s bonds with warrants, and thereafter, it cannot be said that O directly conducted the procedure in consultation with N’s Matz gold, thereby constituting an arrangement for the above introduction of the Defendant. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Even if the defendant was involved in the Mezz bond acquisition, the defendant was involved in the Mezz bond acquisition.