A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing in sentencing) (i.e., the Defendant, as the head of the Technical Headquarters of M Foundation, did not have been involved in the sale of softs or L Co-related business explanation against the victims; thus, the Defendant conspired with the Defendants to commit the instant fraud.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which was improper to be too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (Improper Sentencing for Defendant A)’s sentence against Defendant A is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the illegality of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor against the Defendant appears to have been conducted more led by K, the president of the M Foundation, on the basis of the commercialization and value increase of Lcos. Of the profits, the amount that appears to have been remitted for K’s overseas activities is not significant, it seems that the victims who purchased the extraction equipment without serious consideration of the business prospects, etc. are also responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage. The equity between the case where the Defendant rendered a judgment simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which was finalized on March 29, 2017, should be considered, and the fact that the victims of the 21st victims were exposed to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is a sale of 1,650,000 won in 1,650,000 Won, under the pretext that the elderly victims who fall short of understanding of virtual currencies and advanced technologies are extracting L coaches who do not have any particular value. The crime of this case is ① the majority of the victims, and the total amount of damages is equivalent to 642 billion won, ② the defendant is K.