The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) L to which the Defendant belongs is not a direct investment, but a public relations agent for attracting N (hereinafter “N”)’s investment funds.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an act of receiving similar facts.

2) The Defendant did not have any intention to receive similar facts because he was aware that N was legally registered and reported.

3) There is no similar receipt of money invested by the Defendant and accomplices.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act prohibits a similar receiving act, which is not a similar receiving act. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act prohibits “The act of importing an investment by promising to pay an amount in full or in excess of the investment amount in the future” as one of the similar receiving acts.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspired with other accomplices to receive similar goods.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

(1) L is clear that if investing in N, a fixed monthly interest shall be paid and the principal thereof shall be guaranteed, and it constitutes an act of receiving investments in the future by promising to pay the total amount of investments or an amount in excess thereof.

(2) A corporation, N's telegraph, has been in charge of the solicitation of investment proceeds.

M establishes L, which is a subsidiary of a large scale of investment funds to be recruited, and primarily engages in N's collection of investment funds.

L has the solicited investors directly deposit the investment money into N’s deposit account on the following day. It has been deposited from N on the following day.