The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the attached list of crimes.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The admissibility of the protocol of interrogation of suspect by the prosecution against G alleging that the prosecutor did not publicly recruited with G is also problematic, but the prosecutor withdraws the above protocol of interrogation of suspect by the trial at the trial, which is not separately determined.

The Defendant had not conspiredd with G to commit the instant crime.

Therefore, it is unreasonable that G is liable to the defendant for the portion of the investment amount of KRW 1 billion that the defendant voluntarily remitted to W by the victims who did not know by attracting investment.

2) From among investors described in the list of crimes, M cannot be viewed as the network since it was separately charged with F as a principal offender and was tried as a case jointly with the Defendant. Q also is part of the degree of participation in F, and therefore cannot be viewed as the network.

Therefore, the part in which the above M [the number of crimes (1) 8, the number 5 in the list of crimes (3), the number 7 in the list of crimes (4)] and Q [the number 1 in the table of crime (1) and 49 in the table of crime, and the net 26 in the table of crime (2)] are investors should be excluded from the amount of damage.

B) An investor I andO testified in the court of the court below that "I do not know the defendant at all," and therefore, the defendant does not have any role in relation to the above I andO's investment. Therefore, the part I [I [crimes (1) net 58 times, crime sights (2) net 30 times] andO [T and crime sights (1) net 6 times] as an investor should be excluded from the amount of damage.

C) In the list of crimes where investors cannot be clearly identified [the list of crimes (1), 1, 74 times in the net time, 32, 33, 34, 35 times in the list of crimes, 32, 33, 35 times in the net time in the list of crimes, 3, 4 in the list of crimes, 1, 2, 3, 4 in the net time in the list of crimes, 4 in the list of crimes, 1, 2, 3, 4 in the list of crimes] cannot be readily determined as an investment amount related to F, so the amount of damage must be excluded from

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that he did not compete with G, 1).