The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant developed the electronic wall cream (hereinafter referred to as the “batch cating”), the Defendant had been aware that the cat has not been developed at the time, and the Defendant had been present for the purpose of attracting investment money, knowing that the cat has not been developed; (b) the Defendant had been present.

In full view of the fact that the words of attracting investment in a family-based event are erroneous, the defendant's public-private partnership can be fully recognized.

However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged [the process of the crime and the role sharing among the co-offenders] The defendant is a person operating the "G", a software developer, who intends to create a program related to the virtual waste, and supply it to the multi-level company of J, and thereby invite investors. The defendant is required to create a virtual currency and a paper tag with I as the result of the receipt of the proposal from the "K", and the cost of creating a program for virtual waste extraction is required between I and I, but the virtual currency is developed prior to the development of the main text. As such, K is given a kind of points with the name of "K in accordance with its investment money," and if the investors intend to use a paper-type container issued by the food-raising company of J, etc., by offering 00, the defendant and the 2,000 if the investors agree to purchase the paper-type and 3,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000).