A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: A person who solicited a victim F to join the victim E and a person who received money from the victim is D, and the defendant did not have conspired with D and E, and only the defendant is a subordinate subscriber.

B. Improper sentencing: The punishment of the lower judgment (2 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In the lower judgment, the Defendant alleged as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court held a briefing session on the business and investment of “C” with D, E, etc. to encourage unspecified persons to make an investment, and the lower court recognized the lower business entity’s subscription as a subordinate business entity, such as D, etc., joining a subordinate business entity; and D, joining a subordinate business entity, etc.; and the business method of “C”, such as the fact that the lower business entity joined the subordinate business entity; and according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant conspiredd to attract “C” investors along with D, E, etc.

It can be seen that the business method of the “C” is disguised to earn profits from the operation of shopping mall, but in fact, it is difficult to maintain the business if it does not make new investments in money, and the Defendant has been aware of it at least at least.

on the ground that “I may see” did not accept the assertion.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, it is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do993, Mar. 30, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do993, Mar. 30, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 201Do93, Mar. 30, 2017; the fact that the defendant is a subordinate insured does not affect the establishment