Considering the fact that the Defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, that the Defendant did not use or take up for himself out of the investment funds in this case, and that the Defendant transferred the shares of the institutional authority company with respect to the investment funds which have not been repaid, the return of the investment funds can be deemed to have been made. In addition to the punishment of a fine on one occasion by violating the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant faithfully lives without any particular criminal history, and that the Defendant has been detained for a long time, the lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

The victims of this case's crime is merely a method adopted by the defendant to continue the crime of fund-raising without permission under the above Acts and subordinate statutes. The defendant's crime of this case's 10.5 billion won's investment by establishing a stock company and conducting fund-raising business without permission under the above Acts and subordinate statutes. In light of the size and frequency of the fund-raising business, the issue is not easy. Even if the defendant paid or used for fund-raising business for the acquisition of a new investment advisory company, such circumstance alone does not lead to a decrease in the possibility of self-misunderstanding of the crime of fund-raising business of this case's crime of this case's crime. Further, even if the defendant's fund-raising business of this case's crime of this case's crime of this case's crime of this case's crime of unfair sentencing is merely a method adopted by the victims to maintain the crime of fund-raising business like this case's act of fund-raising or performance, and it is hard to view that the defendant's fund-raising fund and performance-raising fund of this case's new fund-raising company's crime of this case's total injury.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju