2. The Defendants obtained money from victims and received similar money in the name of investment funds by iceizing investment in a private horse race track.

In addition to these crimes, it is necessary to strictly regulate and punish the victims as it seriously disturbs the financial transaction order in itself.

In light of the period and frequency of the crime, the number of victims, the amount of money acquired by deception, or the amount of money received, etc., the crime is not good and the responsibility of the defendants is very heavy.

Although the court below and the court below agreed with some victims in the trial, it seems that the recovery of substantial damage has not been made properly.

It is inevitable to pronounce a sentence as to the Defendants.

However, Defendant A has reached the first instance trial. Defendant A should take into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant B recognized each crime from the lower trial to reflect the mistake, and the fact that the amount of actual damage is not less than the amount of fraud through the payment of money in the name of profit, and that some victims are taking the preference against the Defendants, in determining punishment against the Defendants.

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of the Defendants’ role and degree of participation in the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is the lowest of legal penalty within the scope of the mitigated punishment (one year and six months to two months), and other factors such as all of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, which are revealed in the hearing at the lower court and the party deliberation, the sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants A is unfairly heavy or minor by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to have been approved.