A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had to pay the obligation to E, and the members of the number system operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “number system of this case”) did not pay the guidance money as an ex officio employee. There are many cases where the members of the number system operated by the Defendant did not pay it properly.

When the defendant was continuously operating the system, it was not impossible for the defendant to operate the system by contact with the members even in the situation where the defendant has left the bullying of E.

In light of these circumstances, at least, the defendant can be recognized as dolusorous intention of acquiring money in exchange for C and D.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that C and D had the intent to defraud the Defendant from the time of joining the instant number system to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable deliberation.

It is difficult to see it.

C The guidance was operated normally by the members of the fraternity affiliated with D, such as that the fraternity did not make a timely payment of the fraternity, or that the Defendant used the fraternity at will, without using it for the payment of the fraternity, the personal debt repayment, etc.

There is no circumstance that can be concluded.

B. K and L actually received fraternitys from the Defendant, and C received fraternitys from the Defendant even before the instant case, there are two occasions before the instant case.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

We do not accept the prosecutor's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. The sentencing of the defendant may be considered after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.