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

The court below's compensation order.

A. On October 11, 2013, Defendant A (1) mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, (a) Defendant A, who was involved in the crime of fraud against the victim Q Q, received an investment of KRW 300 million from Q on October 11, 2013 for the operation of the In-house car page, there was no problem in the financial structure of the company operating by the Defendant, and the Defendant terminated the investment contract as required by Q. Since the transfer of the above “R” to U and Q for the purpose of raising funds to return the investment funds to Q, it did not intend to obtain the investment funds to return the investment funds. Therefore, there was no intention to obtain the investment funds from Q.

(B) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities, the Defendant’s receipt of investment funds from specific investors, which have been introduced by the consulting company, via the management of each intra-company carpet is merely the exchange of funds through the transaction of goods, and does not constitute an act of similar receiving funds against many and unspecified persons prohibited by the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities.

(C) The Defendant related to the compensation order is proceeding with the applicant for compensation, and in the case of the applicant D and E, there is a history of holding a separate enforcement title, such as the promissory note process deed, and conducting some collection. Thus, the instant compensation order is an incidental law.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the Defendants’ fraud against the victim AF on November 9, 2012, the victim NF, the victim N on January 10, 2013, and the victim victim AG on November 16, 2012 due to economic difficulties since 2011, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to pay the profits agreed upon to the victims because they did not have any intent or ability to pay the said victims the said wages. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investment of each of the victims.