The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The decision of the court below [2018 Godan985] and 2018 Godan285] The defendant, with respect to the case, listen to the statement that "D Co. has a patent right related to D Co., Ltd. 3D Scrap golf" from C, and did not acquire money from victims in collusion with C. 2) As to the case of the court below's decision [2] / [2018 Godan3576], the defendant only sold shares upon the request of GB by "T Co., Ltd. with one million shares," so there was no intention of deception, so there was no intention of deception.

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

2. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and since the applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, the part of the lower court’s rejection of the above application for compensation in its judgment is excluded from

A. A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts [1] [2018 Godan985] and [2018 Godan2285] case constitutes a criminal offense committed by a conspiracy or conspiracy in the conspiracy of co-principals, and there is a strict proof in order to recognize the case. However, in a case where the defendant acknowledges the facts directly involved in the act of the commission of the commission, and denies the criminal intent along with the fact of the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements must be proved by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the facts by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 203Da1244, Jan. 24, 2003).