Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant B, and Defendant D, respectively, with prison labor of one year and two months.

A. Defendants 1) Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (A) was believed to have been actually carried out by the business of fostering underground funds by mistake, and there was no intention of defraudation.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant C (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

4) Defendant DA misunderstanding the fact (1) is believed to have been actually carried out by the business of fostering underground funds, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.

(2) Paragraph (1) of the facts charged only by introducing the victim to other Defendants, but not by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim.

(3) Paragraph (2) of the facts charged was invested in AC in consultation with the Defendant A and the injured party, and the Defendant merely conducted a guarantee by gathering such circumstances, but did not deceiving the victim or deceiving the victim of KRW 270 million, and thus is irrelevant to the Defendant.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants are too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the arguments in this case and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records, such as the fact that KRW 100 million was recovered from the damage amount of the crime committed by both the Defendants in the judgment of Defendant A, and the victim did not want the punishment (the victim submitted a written agreement to the effect that all the remaining damage was recovered on April 11, 2018, but there is no objective evidence that the damage was actually recovered, the remaining damage is not deemed recovered, and the court below’s punishment seems to be unfair, and thus, the defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. Defendant B 1) Facts acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular.