All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In light of the role of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and the place of using the money obtained through deception in Defendant B’s public prosecutor’s G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the lower judgment, despite in collusion with Defendant BF, did not err by misapprehending the fact by declaring innocence to the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, community service work, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts: (a) although Defendant A was a de facto manager of the interest of the founder of G, Defendant A was registered as the representative director of the company; (b) Defendant B was partially responsible for the management and use of the company’s funds; (c) Defendant A determined and implemented the company’s solicitation for investment; (b) Defendant B did not directly participate in the company when Defendant A was only to receive investment from the victimized party in the court of the lower judgment; (d) Defendant A did not directly participate; (e) the victim was the person who explained for investment or recommended investment; and the victim was also the Defendant A with knowledge of the representative director of G to Defendant A.

Defendant B did not participate in the process of receiving money from the injured party, and thereafter, Defendant B managed the passbook and seal of the juristic person as the representative director in the process of paying money.

The statement, 3. The victim also stated that specific stories related to investment or landscaping in the court below's decision were made by the defendant A, and the defendant A and the victim did not specifically memory what stories the defendant B had when the defendant B attended the place where the defendant B was living.

Defendant B’s prior knowledge of Defendant A’s fraud crime

Even if Defendant B does not restrain Defendant A from committing a crime.