Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined that (i) under favorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant did not seem to have had the intent to actively acquire deposits from victims; (ii) as the Defendant was detained before and after the judgment, the AK business was de facto suspended; and (iii) such circumstance was deemed to have had an impact on the expansion of damage; (iv) although it is disputing the criminal intent, the lower court recognized the lower court’s mistake; (iii) on the one hand, around 1/3 of the amount of damage; (iv) a measure of refund was taken; and (v) a defendant agreed with some victims; and (v) a case where the Defendant delivers goods to the victim or refund money to the victim; and (v) a case where the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of the Defendant’s business and the Defendant’s punishment were sufficiently finalizeded.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and up to the trial of the lower court, the conditions and conditions of sentencing of the lower court.