Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 17 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The sentence of the lower court (20 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act against the Defendant is an aiding and abetting offender, and must be punished within the scope of the term of punishment for which mitigation is required pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act. The judgment of the court below is too excessive to aiding and abetting, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 6(1), Article 3, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Punishments, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 6(1), Article 3, and Article 6 of the same Act on the Regulation of Optional Receipt of Punishments (generally,

1. Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated for aiding and abetting, and Article 55(1)6 of the same Act

1. The Defendant’s age, sexual intercourse, and crime committed under a favorable condition, such as: (a) the confession of and reflects against the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act; (b) the absence of criminal record; (c) the investors who invested through the Defendant want to leave the Defendant’s wife; (d) the degree of participation; and (e) the Defendant’s investment in the instant case; and (e) the crime of this case where the Defendant received illegal money and led a large number of victims, which led to the occurrence of multiple victims, is disadvantageous to the Defendant’s age, sexual intercourse; and (e) the crime.