The judgment below

The guilty part of the defendant's case is reversed.

The judgment below

Of the compensation applicants, AG, AJ, AP, AM, BJ, BD, etc.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was only involved in withdrawal and remittance of money, and the functional control over the crime of fraud is not recognized. Thus, the joint principal offender in the crime of fraud is not established.

B) Of the amount of damage as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired money for approximately KRW 25 million, which the Defendant, etc. failed to withdraw, since the remittance was completed by the victims, but the withdrawal of the account was suspended.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant is fully aware of the habituality of the crime of fraud, so a habitual crime is established.

B) A crime of habitual fraud is established against the Defendant, and even if the Defendant does not habitually commit fraud, the crime of habitual fraud is established against the other accomplices, and the crime of crime organization and activity against the Defendant and accomplices is established.

Therefore, the defrauded money of this case constitutes property of at least KRW 300 million in total acquired through the crime of habitual fraud, or property acquired through the crime of organization and activity of a criminal organization, and constitutes property generated by the "criminal act corresponding to a serious crime" under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter "the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds"), i.e., crime proceeds, so long as the Defendant disguises the acquisition or disposition of the above money, it constitutes a crime of violation of the Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Act.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not require any legal penalty, and only two or more persons conspired to commit a crime and to realize a crime.