2. The Defendant is making a confession of each of the instant crimes.

The victims are relatively small in the size of the similar receipt of the instant case, and victims are also members of the victims to obtain high profits in a short period, and are liable for the occurrence or expansion of damage.

The defendant only recruited some investors by taking advantage of each of the crimes of this case planned by D, but does not seem to have actively participated in the crime.

The Defendant appears to have received benefits from each of the instant crimes without having divided profits from each of the instant crimes.

In addition, each of the crimes of this case is in the relation of fraud for which judgment has become final and ex post facto concurrent crimes on March 2017, and at the same time, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of sentencing a judgment.

However, it is necessary to strictize the social harm, such as distort the sound economic order and impairing the general public's work consciousness, by inducing the victims' gambling spirit.

The defendant did not pay a considerable amount of damages to the victims, and did not receive a letter from the victims.

A large number of criminal offenders committed against the defendant and committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime are disadvantageous circumstances.

Considering the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the court below's decision No. 49-10th to 10th is a regulation on similar receiving act.