All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

All applications for compensation order shall be dismissed by applicants.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A did not specifically state the victims with regard to the amount of public performance in 2013, and Defendant A did not state the victims with regard to the amount of public performance in 2013. The “N Settlement Report in 2013” was 2: 136 pages of evidence records.

In the year 2013, sales that are not related to performance are limited to the simple number of performances by Defendant B, and Defendant A was aware of this last and told the victim H, so there was no intention to deception or deception against the Defendants.

The Defendants were able to make profits only after the victims recover the principal of the investment and take advantage of the distribution order of investment profits. In light of the fact that the investment funds in this case were managed in a state where it is possible to withdraw only with the consent of the victim H, and all of them were actually used to perform in 2014, the Defendants had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation or to acquire illegal profits.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In 2013, the victims decided to make the investment of this case by comprehensively taking into account the various factors such as the nature of the work in the performance, as well as the turnover in the performance, and in 2013, the amount of public performance was not a factor to decide on the investment decision of the Defendants.

In addition, in 2014, the victims were fully aware of the fact that the “corporate group sales” could not occur, and decided to make the investment of this case, on the 21-25 pages of Defendant A’s grounds for appeal. Therefore, even if there were some errors in the instant report, the instant report was partially erroneous.

The sole fact is that there was a causal relationship between the Defendants’ deception and the victims’ disposal act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The lower court erred in recognizing “the act of deception by Defendant A’s omission,” which is not specified in the facts charged in the instant case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (two years of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles is argued.