1. Of the lower judgment, each of the convictions against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, Defendant I, J, and K on the top of 2017 order against Defendant I, J, and K. 8340.

1. Defendant J, upon filing an appeal by the prosecutor, withdrawn the appeal on the first trial date, and the remaining Defendants did not file an appeal.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court acquitted Defendant A, B, I, J, and K on the part of the charges of fraud of Defendants A, B, I, J concerning the instant case, on the ground that: (a) the amount that was not deposited in L’s business account among the charges of fraud of the instant case 2nd 1-10, 15-18, 20-28, 30-32, 39-32, 39-46, 48, 50-81, 83, 86, 87, 89, 92-97) could not be readily concluded that the said amount was stolen as investment funds for the said company; and (b) acquitted the said amount of money deposited among the charges of fraud of Defendants A, B, I, J, and K.

In addition, the lower court acquitted Defendant G, I, and K on the facts charged of the crime of fraud and the crime of violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act by Defendant G, on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the damage amount was a money acquired through deception as investment in light of the fact that the damage amount was not deposited into L’s business account even in the case of the 2018 Highest 7494 case.

Defendant

The charge of violating the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. by I and K was acquitted.

However, the victims' act of fraud and door-to-Door Sales, etc. of the Defendants was committed by deceiving the Defendants by using a multi-level similar organization, thereby paying money in the name of investment, and the crime of violation of the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, etc. of the Defendants does not affect the establishment of the above crime.

Therefore, in 2017 High Order 8340 and High Order 2018 High Order 7494, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants concerned on the grounds as above is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 3 years of probation in one and half years of imprisonment; 3 years of probation in one and half years of imprisonment; 3 years of probation in one and half years of imprisonment; 2 years of probation in one year; 3 years of probation in four months of imprisonment; 2 years of probation in four months; 2 years of probation in four months of imprisonment; 2 years of probation in eight months of imprisonment; and 6 of the Defendant.