All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (or 4 years of imprisonment) of Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) (1) is limited to the fact that Defendant B made an investment by deceiving the Defendant A, and there was no fact that Defendant B participated in the crime (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles). (2) Even if Defendant B’s act was found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months) is excessively unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (M) Defendant C is merely a person employed by Defendant A and worked for Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), and there is no fact that Defendant C was involved in the crime (misunderstanding of facts). 2) Even if Defendant C’s act is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant B and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct trial adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).