The judgment below

The part of the defendant C, D, and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. 6 months of imprisonment, Defendant D and E, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On October 10, 2017, Defendant A (unfair sentencing) asserted that there was a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of reasons for appeal filed by the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) on the second trial date ( December 22, 2017), but explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date (hereinafter “the second trial date”).

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B knew that AG was a company that is normally engaged in the business and did not intend to acquire money by deceiving investors, and did not intend to acquire money by deception.

Defendant

B did not work with other Defendants from the end of March 2015. Since the damage of this case occurred thereafter, there was no part of Defendant B’s participation in the action.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, Defendant C is only one of the higher-tier investors who trusted and invested the substance of the Company AG, and is not a domestic general manager of the said Company, and there is no fact that Defendant C managed the lower-tier investors by means of remitting investment funds.

Defendant

C does not intend to acquire money in a successive manner by deceiving victims, and there is no intention to obtain money by fraud.

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

(d)

Defendant

D1) The misunderstanding of facts and legal principles are aware that AG is a company that normally carries on a business, and there is no fact that AG has engaged in a simple interpretation work in order to acquire money by deceiving victims, and there is no intention to acquire money.

In addition, as Defendant D was involved in AG projects around April 2015, Defendant D was not liable as a joint principal offender for the remaining Defendants committed previously.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too large.