All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation in the trial of the party shall be dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for each of 8 months) is too unreasonable.

(The defense counsel of the defendant A clearly expresses that the defendant A's intention and the mistake of facts is not asserted as the grounds for appeal on the first trial date). (b)

The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, including that the Defendants committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime.

The judgment below

Since then, there is a circumstance in which the Defendants submitted the materials to return money to investors by December 2015, and some investors did not want to punish the Defendants.

However, there are still many investors who have not been recovered from damage and N want to be punished by severe punishment against the Defendants, and the above circumstances cannot be said to be a special circumstance or change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too heavy or unreasonable.

The Defendants and the prosecutor’s arguments are without merit.

3. An applicant for compensation seeking payment of KRW 40,00,000,000, which is obtained by deception due to fraud committed by the Defendants. However, this case does not constitute an offense subject to compensation order under Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation due to a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, rather than fraud.