All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts under Defendant A1: The Defendant did not have publicly recruited with C and E, and there was no fact that E proposed the Defendant to recruit its members or offered membership recruitment to the Defendant, and the members of the private futures trading site are merely members of his/her own decision. 2) Unreasonable sentencing is unfair: The punishment (fine 10,000,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s penalty (fine 7,000,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s confession in the court of first instance as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is not in doubt of the probative value or credibility of the confession, solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate trial (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001). The Defendant led to the confession in the court of original instance in the facts charged in this case, and even if examining all of the records of this case, it is difficult to view that there exists any fact or circumstance to conceal the credibility of the confession.

At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only if two or more persons agree to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if a combination of intentions is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and if there was no direct involvement in the conduct, even if there was no direct evidence of the conspiracy, the conspiracy is criminal liability for the other co-principal's act. The above conspiracy can be acknowledged in accordance with the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there was no direct evidence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006). Accordingly, Defendant A directly operates a private futures trading site or engages in its operation.