Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of conviction against Defendant A (including the part of innocence) and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The first instance court found Defendant A not guilty on the part of the facts charged against Defendant A, and ② found Defendant A not guilty on the part of the facts charged, and found Defendant A guilty on the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, which constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and found Defendant A guilty on the remainder of the facts charged.

However, the defendant A and the prosecutor appealed only to the conviction of the defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, although the portion of acquittal in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance was brought to the court of appeal in accordance with the principle of no appeal, it shall be deemed that it was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is followed.

In the end, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (the 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, and the 6 months of imprisonment for the second instance court) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A with respect to the facts constituting the crime as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, and Defendant B is a victim limited liability company M (hereinafter “victim company

2) The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant B (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the first instance court against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. We examine the judgment ex officio on Defendant A and the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on the part of Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

Defendant

A With respect to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the prosecutor shall be guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance.