All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) states that Defendant C, D, and F borrowed money from H, and the statement that Defendant E received money from H with the club fee for Defendant E, etc. that the Defendants’ statement was not reliable; that it is difficult to obtain profit from the Defendants; that the Defendants paid money in KRW 500,000 or KRW 2 million without any benefit; that the Defendants remitted money at the same time as the Defendants, V, and W paid money to the Defendants at the request of H; and that there was a high possibility that the Defendants paid money by proxy upon the request of H. Considering that there was a high possibility that the Defendants paid money by proxy, the Defendants’ testimony to the effect that “the Defendants paid money to the Defendant, etc. and paid money by proxy” was made as a witness of each case at the Incheon District Court case No. 2017Da2460 is a false statement contrary to the Defendants’ memory.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that the facts charged in this case were not proven. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including account transactions, based on detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed as having made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the facts charged by G and H in relation to the facts charged that G and H registered the L association in an unlawful manner by paying their investments in the name of the Defendants in the case related to G and H, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that G and H were acquitted, on the ground that it cannot be ruled out that the Defendants could not transfer money to the invested account with the intent to actually contribute to the association.