The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the criminal facts No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A merely borrowed money from K and Defendant B, with regard to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant A merely received similar money.

shall not be deemed to exist.

② Of the money received by Defendant B from the victims as stated in the judgment of the original instance, Defendant A acquired the money that Defendant B did not remit to Defendant A (excluding KRW 360 million out of the deposited money by the victim H and KRW 416 million out of the deposited money by the victim I).

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and erroneous determination that found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the facts of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, the victims merely leased money to the Defendant B, and the victims cannot be deemed to fall under the “investment” under the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Money that Defendant B received from the victims (hereinafter “the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Money”).

In addition, Defendant B borrowed money only from one’s own land. As such, Defendant B’s act of raising funds does not constitute “an act of raising funds from an unspecified number of unspecified persons” as provided by the similar reception Act.

② As to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the original court, in order to raise the repayment fund for the money borrowed from the K K K Tech, K and the Defendant A deceptioned Defendant B on the business prospects, repayment ability, etc. of G, and thus, Defendant B borrowed money from the victims and borrowed money from the victims, and Defendant B did not intend to commit the crime of fraud of this case with Defendant A and the victims.

Even if there is a conspiracy relation with Defendant A, it is recognized.