All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of facts was not a director of F Co., Ltd. in the judgment, and there was no fact that Defendant E was involved in the decision to accept and sell the P shares of the Co., Ltd. (Defendant D withdrawn the assertion of mistake on the first trial date). B. Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of sentencing by the lower court (each of the Defendants’ KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant E’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant E came to know of F through J regular business, and did not make any investment because of lack of money, but had been engaged in H office several times. The I’s representative was bound to help investors to file a civil petition or provide information, and when the J regular business becomes profits later, Defendant E would have an opportunity to do so.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendant stated that he assisted another person without receiving any money (Evidence No. 767 of the evidence record) and, in relation to the instant case, the fact that the said Defendant directly deposited P& shares sold to investors to some of the investors (Evidence No. 770 of the evidence record). According to such fact, the said Defendant was fully aware of and participated in the instant crime that sold P& shares for which no report was filed with the Financial Services Commission.

Therefore, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing seems to have already sentenced to a more reduced sentence than the fine amount (30 million won) of the summary order in light of the Defendants’ sentencing conditions. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, circumstances, means and method of committing the act, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings and records, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, it does not seem to be unfair.