All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1), at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was engaged in a stock investment in an annual amount equivalent to KRW 7 billion as a trustee, and maintained an annual rate of return on stock investment in an annual amount of KRW 40 billion, and there was sufficient means of repayment, such as holding real estate equivalent to KRW 2 billion at the market price. Defendant 1 did not engage in a “defluencing” in the name used for the redemption of dividends and principal against other investors. The Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain money. 2) The two-dimensional and unfair sentence of the lower court is heavy.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) sentence of the lower court is somewhat minor.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence examined in the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

The fact that the defendant acquired money by deceiving the victim, such as the facts charged, can be recognized based on this.

1) The Defendant was provided with an office in order to give preferential treatment to outstanding customers from D securities, and was treated as an adviser in the form, and there was no actual activity or work as an adviser of D Securities. Nevertheless, the Defendant provided a name named as D Securities Advisor to the victim so that the victim could misleads the Defendant’s career. 2) The Defendant had invested only in shares since about 10 years prior to the investment of the shares, thereby deceiving the victim that he invested in a safe bond.

(The victim consistently refers to the defendant's investment in a safe "claim", and it also means that the defendant would not make an investment if he/she was aware of the fact that he/she made an investment in a stock). 3 Defendant paid profits in accordance with the agreement with the victim before September 2013. However, in light of the following circumstances, it seems that the criminal intent of deceiving the defendant at the time was dolusent.

The defendant is located in the land located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and in the Dong-gu, Seoyang-gu.