A. The punishment of the lower court (or imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant did not have an objective ability to pay dividend of at least 3% per month to the victim, the Defendant paid the principal to the victim or did not pay dividends continuously, and the Defendant used the money received from the victim for an individual purpose, not an investment in stocks, the Defendant is recognized as a crime of deception and fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view this part of the facts charged that the Defendant received a total of KRW 132,00,000 from the victim’s criminal intent by deception, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and acquitted the Defendant on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime.

B. Examining the contents of the judgment of the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts or of misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor recognizes the crime of this case, and the defendant is the primary offender, etc., in favor of others.