Of the defendant's case of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment below against the defendants and the second judgment shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (1) mismisunderstanding of facts (the second instance judgment (2012No. 892) did not err by deceiving the victims of Internet shopping mall sales proceeds, etc. by iceing that the Defendants operated a business entity for selling mobile phones, etc.

A Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter referred to as “I”) is not a typical financial volumed organization, and only I was the only means for securing the payment of the sales price through the recruitment of salespersons, and considering the total amount of earnings paid to I for the profit structure sellers, the Defendants’ fraud is not established.

This part of the facts charged and the form of action are identical, but only some difference between the amount of damage to the victim during the period is pronounced not guilty in the case of the 2011 High Court Decision 3772 (not guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance).

(2) The Defendant A appealed on the ground of mistake of facts as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the case 2012 Highest3710, among the convicted parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and began to make an assertion of unfair sentencing by withdrawing the assertion of mistake of facts on the seventh trial date.

The allegation of unfair sentencing cannot be seen as a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument on the grounds of appeal filing period. However, ex officio sentencing of the entire case should be examined as follows.

The sentence of the lower court (No. 2: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles [the innocent part of the judgment of the court of first instance (201Sang3772)] notified the victims about the consignment store contract with the victims of false information in a way to the extent of criticism in light of their duty of good faith and good faith.

In other words, the prosecutor shall make the instant deception.