A and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor's decision is unfair because it is too unfasible to each punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (three years of imprisonment).

2. As the Defendants conspired to operate a similar recipient company in a short-term manner by inducing the victims to make an investment presentation against many and unspecified persons in a short-term manner, the Defendants deceptioned the victims to receive a total of KRW 243 victims, and acquired a large amount of money from the victims to KRW 2 billion.

In addition, Defendant A acquired the total amount of KRW 180,000,000 by fraud of another method, and Defendant B established a separate similar recipient company and acquired a large amount of money from KRW 114 to KRW 380,000 by the same method as investment money.

In light of the social harm of the act of receiving similar goods and the amount of damage, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendants due to the gross negligence of the crime.

On the other hand, however, the defendants showed the attitude of reflecting all their mistakes, and the defendants did not have the same criminal record, and they did not return considerable amount of money to the victims as allowances for investment money, etc., and they agreed with some victims. The defendants provided the victims with factory machinery, etc. in the similar recipient company as collateral.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances disadvantageous to or favorable to the Defendants, the circumstances after the commission of each of the instant crimes, the age of the Defendants, sexual conduct, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, each of the punishments imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too heavy or unfasible in the scope of the proper sentencing discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

Accordingly, Defendant A.