All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant A (1) 201 Gohap113) specified the part on which Defendant A (201 Gohap113) is dissatisfied with the case number of the lower court, and thus, it is reasonable to specify and determine both parties’ arguments based on the case number of the lower court, as alleged by the Defendant

Defendant A, upon the request of CJ and with the request of CJ, only opened and lent a corporate passbook of Defendant B to BK where BN was in charge of the president, and the act of fund-raising recognized by the original judgment is limited to those conducted by BN, CJ, and V actually operated BK, and Defendant A did not participate in such act of fund-raising, and thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed as a co-principal of the above crime, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

The defendant A of the mistake of facts as to the 2011 Highest 166 case is not the actual operator of D Co., Ltd. (the trade name of the defendant C Co., Ltd. was changed to the above trade name on May 25, 2010; hereinafter the defendant Co., Ltd. is referred to as "D"), and the person who actually establishes and operates D is Y. The defendant A was unaware of the fact that he did not engage in the conduct of fund-raising, such as the crime in this part of the judgment below at the office of the court below, and was not involved in the solicitation of investors, and the full amount of the profits was received and managed as his personal account. Thus, the defendant A cannot be deemed the co-principal of the crime in this part.

Referencely, even if Defendant A’s criminal facts of unfair sentencing are recognized, Defendant A received investments from investors in the name of mobile merchandise coupons, such as AA merchandise coupons, issued by the instant business “BK,” and created high profits by exchanging the said merchandise coupon with a new global merchandise coupon, etc., and then paid dividends on the investment to investors.