Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(b).

A. Defendant A (a person who misleads the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to admissibility of evidence) or in the part on the grounds of appeal and determination of misapprehension of the legal principle, the corresponding part of the case is the Defendant, and the co-defendant is the Defendant, and the co-defendant is the Defendant. The Defendant is the K Business (hereinafter “instant Business”).

The Defendant did not have been involved in the crime of this case. The Defendant did not directly urged the return of the investment funds from AA, and only was used to repay the investment funds of the victims, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes listed in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant crime”).

No one may be deemed to have participated in P. The Defendant is an incorporated association G (hereinafter “G”).

There was no fact that the instant business had been conducted as if it were related to the instant business.

Since the P's statement on this issue has been reversed continuously, there is no credibility.

Defendant

D’s legal statement and investigative agency’s statement, Defendant E’s prosecutor’s statement, text message sent by Defendant B to Defendant D, confirmation and record of the AJ preparation, and some of C’s statements were not reliable. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence to have determined that the Defendant is a real operator of H and participated in the raising of funds for the instant project.

The lower court, as a professional statement, has erred by adopting the following evidence, which is not admissible as evidence, and based on conviction.

1. Of the AF’s statement in court, the phrase “A has expressed to the Secretary General that he/she would control A” shall be inadmissible in accordance with Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(2) Among witness in civil cases related to Q Q, the part in which Q makes a statement shall be inadmissible as a new statement.

③ In the Defendant’s statement, the part of “BH Law Firm and BI, which are responsible for the investment of BH,” is also the full statement from Defendant B.

(4) Defendant.