A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it even the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant has recognized the instant crime for the first time in the trial.

However, the crime of this case is not likely to be a crime because the defendant sold the shares of a Chinese company that is not substantially valuable by using a multi-level similar organization and received investment funds from investors.

There are many investors due to the crime of this case, and the amount of investment is very large.

The duration of the defendant's crime is long and the degree of participation is important.

There is no change in the circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and equity in sentencing with accomplices, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy or unreasonable by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.