All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the financial status of Defendant A (hereinafter “instant company”) was aware of the financial status of the instant company I, and made an investment in his own decision with an expectation of high-value investment profits. As such, the Defendant committed a deceptive act against the victim.

and the victim made an investment in the Defendant’s deception; and

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The victim made an investment in his own decision with the expectation of high-value investment profits with well-known financial situation of the instant company. The Defendant made a fraudulent act against the victim, or the victim made an investment in the Defendant’s deception.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) B) The Defendant, along with A, did not intend or persuade to make an investment with the victim, and the Defendant was merely aware of himself in the process of soliciting the investment of the victim, and decided the details of the investment. Therefore, the Defendant did not have conspired with A.

C) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) is first made on the establishment of fraud against Defendant A, the lower court, and the lower court.