A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. In full view of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it is impossible to establish a crime of fraud against the Defendant.

1) The victim paid investment money to the defendant with the knowledge that the defendant is engaged in the business of receiving investment returns due to exchange rate fluctuations. Thus, the defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged and has no intention to commit fraud by the defendant (after September 3, 2019, the victim has been aware that the defendant was engaged in money exchange business in a hotel hotel casino in marina, so it is clear that the amount paid to the defendant after the above point is not paid by the defendant's deception.) Even if the defendant had been paid money by deceiving the victim even if he was paid money by deceiving the victim.

Even though the following amount shall be excluded from the amount obtained by fraud among the crimes list in the judgment of the court below.

① Crimes Nos. 4 and 5: The Defendant deposited cash into the victim’s V bank account; and the victim transferred the above money to the Defendant as it is; thus, the above money is not acquired.

(2) Criminal sight No. 29, 30: The amount used by the victim individually by withdrawing cash, and the above amount has not been given to the defendant.

③ Criminal sight Nos. 53 and 59: The Defendant transferred money to the victim’s account in the name of a third party (O and W) and the victim transferred the money to X-limited company at the Defendant’s request. As such, the above money is not acquired by the Defendant.

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

2. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor is the case in question.