Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months.

A. Although the Defendants did not commit or conspired the same crime as the facts charged, the court below found the Defendants guilty against the Defendants, which erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendants were guilty of unfair sentencing, in light of the developments leading up to the instant crime and the present situation where the Defendants were faced with, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (each of the Defendants’ imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Receipt of Credit, the summary of this part of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) the Defendants and A decided to attract investments on the condition that profits earned from active domestic fish-import businesses be distributed to investors; and (b) A recommended investors to make investments; (c) Defendant C is in charge of planning, such as document preparation; and (d) Defendant B conspired to prepare a security agreement and L/C-backed investment contract with the content that the Flux site in E religious Organizations Flux City, Nam, and H will provide the necessary security for the establishment of the domestic active fish-import credit; (1) Defendants and A did not have any capital stock, and Defendant B failed to secure the necessary security for the establishment of the credit related to active fish-import business; and (b) Defendant B did not have the right to provide the above Flux credit site to investors; and thus, even if they did not have any capacity to receive profits from the investors and investors in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 10.