The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B and C, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months.

A. Of the lower judgment, the lower court acquitted the Defendants, who committed the act of receiving flowing water, on the part of the lower judgment, on the ground that such similar receipt as misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the acquitted portion is sufficient to ensure the principal and to raise funds from many people without obtaining permission, and thus, in relation to the Defendants, a joint principal offender of the act of receiving flowing water may be the victim, but the joint principal offender of the act of receiving flowing water may also be the victim.

2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, Defendant B, and C: 3 years) is too uneased and unfair.

B. Defendants C, B, and G’s chapter heads, and branch heads, who are co-offenders in the act of receiving similar facts, deposited in the name of another person, such as one’s own name, family, and relatives, for the performance of inducing subordinate investors, does not constitute an act of receiving similar facts, and therefore, there was no deception in the process. Therefore, the crime of fraud is not established. The crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts and the crime of fraud and the crime of fraud are not substantive concurrent crimes but commercial concurrent crimes.

B) Defendant C is not a similar recipient company, and Defendant C was not aware that it was a similar recipient company, Defendant C was not a public contest with H, and the maintenance cost was not an investment in the money deposited pursuant to the agreement with G, which was not a money invested in high-income or principal guarantee, etc., and thus cannot be said to be a similar receipt or fraud. However, the lower court calculated the maintenance cost by including the similar receipt amount and fraud amount in the maintenance cost. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, etc. that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above-mentioned sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the determination of the defendant and prosecutor's argument prior to the judgment.

A. On April 19, 2017, the Prosecutor at the lower court’s order 831, the lower court’s order 2017.