The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall each receive 200,000,000 won and each of the above.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the fraud of F among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

Therefore, since only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below became separate and definite in the limit of the appeal period, and was excluded from the scope of the judgment

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal - misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The defendant had worked as the representative director of H, but the defendant is merely engaged in only the business instructed by AU, the actual representative director, and there is no fact that he had taken part in the business related to the company's funds, and there is no fact that the victims of this case had been urged.

2) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in the instant case.

B. Even if all of the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, in light of the role of the Defendant in the company, the criminal record of the Defendant, and other circumstances, the sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the statements in AU and AV, the court below's judgment convicting each of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to rules of evidence.

1) The Defendant jointly participated in the establishment of H, and not only performed a certain role as a representative director, but also revealed that he is a representative director in the course of soliciting investors, and IUB I.