1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) except for adding “the plaintiff” in the 12th judgment of the court of first instance to “the defendant”; and (b) adding “the judgment on the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the trial” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as Paragraph (2), are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the assertion that the defendant emphasizes in the trial room

A. First, the Defendant asserted that even though the Defendant was in the position of the head of the headquarters (RM) and branch office (BM), it is merely a formal position designated by C, etc., and the Defendant did not participate in any important work, such as fund management and investment explanation, or major decision-making, in relation to the act of fund receipt by C, etc., and H and G (hereinafter “H, etc.”) did not receive direct instructions from C, etc. and did not have the status of supervising and supervising H, etc., the Defendant did not bear liability for tort against the Plaintiff.

As seen earlier, the Defendant was convicted of having committed an act of fund-raising without delay in collusion with C, etc. from August 12, 2014 to August 21, 2015. The judgment became final and conclusive.

In addition, according to the evidence and the purport of the whole arguments cited above, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The business employees of the non-party company were organized into the head of the headquarters (RM), branch offices (BM), and business employees (FC). However, if the business employees success in the attraction of investments, the relevant business employees (FC) were paid 2% of the monthly investment amount (i.e., 1.8% around September 2015), 1% of the investment amount (i.e., 0., 0.8% around January 2015 and 0.7% around September 2015), and the head of the branch office was paid 1% of the investment amount (i.e., 0., 0. 8% around January 2015 and 0.6% around September 2015) as service fees.

(2) The Defendant shall commence the commencement of investment ( August 12, 2014).