2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the Defendant appears to be against his own will while engaging in the instant crime. The Defendant’s main role and business in the instant fraud appears not to have led and directed the crime by taking overall charge of issuing a certificate of deposit and paying dividends to investors according to the company’s instructions, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant has concealed the funds received from the victims individually, and it is unclear how much the proceeds have been distributed, the victims are also partly responsible for the occurrence of the damage by investing in the mind that they would pay high interest or dividends, and the Defendant has no specific criminal power, except for those sentenced once prior to the instant fraud.

On the other hand, the defendant, in collusion with other accomplices, acquired investment money by deceiving investors as if they could guarantee the principal and pay high profits even though they did not actually receive high profits. The victim's number and amount of damage are high, and the crime is very heavy, such as not only the damage recovery but also the damage recovery, and such crime is highly likely to cause social harm and criticism. The defendant continued to be involved in the crime by November 30, 2001, even though he was detained by the police first control on August 13, 2001, while the accomplice was detained, it was living for escape for a period of about 12 years thereafter, and the crime was committed in this case.