Defendant

Each appeal of A, B, and C and each appeal of the Prosecutor against the Defendant B, C, and D shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not have conspired to commit the crime with M and the fraud, and the Defendant explained to investors the business plan of Q by excessively remotely or excessively exaggerations the profitability from investment, but the degree does not reach the degree of deception against the duty of trust and good faith in the transaction, and there was no intention to acquire illegal investment to acquire investment money by the Defendant. Thus, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are acquitted, but the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B (unfair sentencing) (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, community service 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, community service time, 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

(d)

The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants against the public prosecutor (unlawful sentencing against Defendants B, C, and D) is too unafford and unreasonable. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unafford as follows: one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, three years of probation, community service observation, 200 hours of community service, one year of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation observation, community service, etc.).

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake on the facts were duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) even if based on the statement made by R’s investigative agency, the representative of Q Q, the products were sold from around August 20, 2014 to around May 2016, and only sold approximately 4,500 S products to Police Officers from around March 2016, and exported them to six countries, including China. The factory facilities were installed around April 2016.