The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Imprisonment with labor for one year and eight months, and Defendant C.

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant did not have conspired with U, X, etc. as to the instant facts charged No. 1 of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and there was no fact that he had engaged in S investment attraction activities with many and unspecified persons including victims in order to acquire money from the victims, and therefore, he cannot be held liable for a crime as a joint principal offender.

In addition, as to the part related to Paragraph 2 (State) of the charge No. 2 (AD) -1 of the charge, the co-defendants of the court below are co-offenders, so they should not be included in the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1) In fact, it is contradictory to the lower court’s joint defendants, who are co-offenders in Section 2-AD (State), Section 2-AD (AEco), - Violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., the first door-to-door Sales, the first door-to-door Sales Act, the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar-Door Sales, etc., and Section 3 of Section 4-A of the facts charged, the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, and the violation of the Act on the Regulation

Defendant C should be excluded from the list of victims listed in the list of annexed crimes No. 9 of Section 4-b (State) AJ (AK) frauds in the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (as against Defendant A) by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor, the health room and the prosecutor are in the appellate court.