All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant 1 heard from I an explanation about F’s profitability and investment prospects, and believed F’s ability to redeem investment funds and to pay dividends, and Defendant himself invested approximately KRW 200 million in F.

Therefore, there was an intentional intention of deceiving the defendant.

In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant did not know of G, which is a domestic top-class investor, and there is no fact that there is no contact with G. Therefore, there is no public contest relation with G.

In particular, the Defendant started to make an investment in another place on November 2014, and did not attract investment to F, and the Defendant’s punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 200 hours of community service order) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable, because the investment amount on January 23, 2015, e.g., e., e., e., 46-5 May 11, 2015, e.g., e., e., e., the list of crimes, and e., e., e., the list of crimes.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the part of the investment money deposited in the name of the Defendant and his family, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, and determined that the instant crime was committed in a way that the Defendant received and remitted the investment money to the Defendant’s passbook.

Other than that, the part of innocence is also erroneous on the basis of the defendant's defense, without considering the basic structure of F and the type of defendant's participation, and on the basis of only the fact confirmation of subordinate investors whose credibility is extremely low.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, we first examine the assertion that the Defendant had no intention to deceive the Defendant.

The following circumstances can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the original court in various circumstances described in the judgment of the court below, 1.