All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) (1) Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which is a joint criminal offense with P, B, C, and D, is committed on April 4, 2012, the Suwon District Court rendered a summary order of KRW 5 million as a crime of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “instant summary order”).

(2) The establishment of a private futures trading site may not be punished as gambling opening, because it has the effect of the above summary order in relation to a single comprehensive crime as stated in the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive.

3) The penalty sentenced by the lower court (additional charge of KRW 2, 919,384,72) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant D’s imprisonment (nomenclature 10 months) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair. (c) Defendant F (definite M) demanded Defendant F to compensate Defendant A and B, C, D, AD, and AY (hereinafter “A, etc.”) for losses or for lack of operation of the instant gift site, and did not send text messages with the intent to obtain money by threatening A, etc.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant as to whether the instant summary order was acquitted or not: (a) the “office as a physical space” and “a person in charge of the management of the U.S. gift site, telephone consultation with members, and the management of entry and departure between members, etc. in the office room” are important for the operation of the U.S. gift site; (b) the spatial elements of the office are different from the case for which the instant summary order was finalized and the location of the office in which the U.S. gift site was operated; and (c) the case for which the instant summary order became final and conclusive was prosecuted as a single criminal by Defendant A, but this part of the facts charged