The judgment below

"Crimes of Nos. 1, 2, and 5 in the order of the market" shall be construed as "Crimes of Nos. 1, 2, and 5 in the market."

A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment with prison labor for April and June) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Definite, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) did not receive property by deceiving the victim I, and did not have the intent to commit fraud.

In addition, the sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the defendant's judgment on the defendant A's assertion recognizes all the criminal facts and reflects them, and the fact that in the case of the crime of fraud against the victim I, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant should consider equity with the case of the judgment at the same time as

However, the crime of this case was committed by a majority of the victims, and the victim was trusted by means of paying investment money or proceeds promised to the victims at the early stage of the investment, and used a method of receiving a large amount of investment money from the victims, and then, the liability for such crime is more severe, damage recovery is almost little, and the defendant was sentenced to a fine and a suspended execution for the same crime for more than ten times, but the crime of this case was committed in each of the crimes of this case, and all of this case was committed during the suspended execution period (the crime of this case No. 1, No. 2, 5, and 6) or during the trial (the third crime at the time) due to the same kind of crime.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and consequence leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence sentenced by the lower court is appropriate, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court on the Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, a thorough examination of the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is acceptable