Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six years, Defendant .

A. Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G’s grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing) are recognized as having violated the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”). However, some defense counsel asserted that the business conducted in relation to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is not subject to authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or that there is no obligation to obtain authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act in light of the Defendants’ respective positions. However, as the court below properly pointed out, in the case of the category of private investment association (E or ET), it is reasonable to view that the source of the investment amount is H in the case of the category of “private investment association” and the substance of the instant private investment association is more than 49 persons, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the “reasons for exclusion of collective investment” under Article 6(5)1 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 6(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act does not constitute a “collective investment business subject to management instruction” under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

In addition, the accounting review report (No. 9, 612, 1,621 of the evidence record) dated March 31, 2014 was prepared by the IO Accounting Corporation, indicating that there is a legal risk of authorization under the Capital Markets Act (RSK). Furthermore, as seen in the judgment on the fraud of the following, the Defendants are functionally contributed to the financial investment business related to the crime of this case.