(1) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant was the first, second, third-A, fourth, and six-years of the judgment, and second.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the remaining part of the judgment of the court below excluding the crime of No. 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance), the defendant received money from the victims as investment money or borrowed money, but the defendant did not deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged, and there was no intention to obtain fraud at the time. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty all of these facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court of first instance (as to the crimes of No. 1, 2, 3-A, 4, 6: imprisonment for 2 years, 3-B, 3-B, and 5: imprisonment for 2 months, 3-B, and 2-B, which was sentenced by the court of second instance (as to the crimes of No. 1 and 2: imprisonment for 4 months,

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

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance rendered each judgment against the defendant, and the defendant and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the above two judgments.

This Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of Articles 1, 2, 3-A, 4, 6 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the crimes of Articles 1, 1-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 3-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the crimes of Articles 3-2 and 3-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 2 of the judgment of the court of second instance, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and each punishment shall

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the fraud of investment or borrowed money relating to futures option trading.