The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The amount of damage suffered by the victim to five persons reaches a total of KRW 450 million.5 billion.

Defendant has been punished for a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same crime.

On the other hand, although the defendant argued some of the facts charged in the court below, it shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing all the errors in the trial.

It does not seem that there is no responsibility for victims who have invested large amounts of damage or expansion of damage in order to obtain high profits in trust only at the end of the defendant without closely considering the risk of monetary business or virtual profit-making structure, etc. in the department store business.

At the lower court, the victim B, N, andO agreed smoothly with the victim, and the victim M, K, and K expressed their intent to withdraw the complaint by mutual agreement with the victim M, K, and K.

There is no record of punishment for the defendant after May 2009.

In addition, considering the various sentencing factors in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, relationship with victims, crime history, etc., and the following sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, the sentence of the court below is deemed unfair.

The defendant's improper argument of sentencing is justified, and prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

O. The sentencing guidelines for fraudulent crimes [types] [In the case where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage, the victim is not subject to punishment [where the victim is subject to the increase of special sentencing] or has committed a crime repeatedly for a considerable period of time. [The scope of recommended punishment] The scope of mitigation area: the criteria for suspension of execution ofO in October - February 2, 194 [main reasons for positive consideration] [the grounds for suspension of execution ofO in June 2] and the sources of punishment [the general reasons for negative consideration].

3. Conclusion of the defendant.