Of them, the part against Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, and I and the part against Defendant H shall be reversed.

A. Inasmuch as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A and B, Defendants 1), K-related (2016, 9377, and 2016, 9490, criminal facts No. 1) common (Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) (1) related to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission is goods not money, and even if having another person make an investment in K, this does not constitute an act of raising funds.

② Since K is a good with a large price change, even if the Defendants explained to the effect that “the Defendants may receive K more than K invested” to other persons, it cannot be deemed that they agreed to guarantee the principal of the goods.

(2) On the charge of violating the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, K is a good, and its investment in the instant J-related case exchanged with K does not constitute a monetary transaction under the pre-transaction of goods or services, or under the pre-sale of goods or services.

② In the event of attracting new investors, K as agreed to pay by the J is not a consideration for the investment attraction itself, but an additional K as additionally produced due to the large and efficient extraction from the combined extraction method is distributed according to the degree of contribution.

Therefore, it is not applicable to multi-level sales organizations.

B) Defendant C merely introduced the projects of J as a simple investor, and there is no fact that the principal has been guaranteed, and there has been no recommendations for investment with the president of the J or any other co-defendant. In addition, Defendant C merely introduced the projects of the J to only one person, so it cannot be deemed that Defendant C raised funds from many and unspecified persons, since Defendant D, E, and F (1) merely explained general terms, such as the concept of K, and did not attract investors for the projects of the J, and there is no fact that Defendant C conspired with the president of the J et al.

(2) The above Defendants are related to J after July 30, 2014.