Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below No. 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The Defendant did not receive any training from his employees, and did not take part in the management of the company.

There was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, the Defendant did not have any conspiracy to commit the instant crime with a mere sales employee.

Witness

L's legal statement is inadmissible, and it is not sufficient to prove the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

(c)

The Prosecutor (as to the first instance judgment against Defendant A), the lower court’s punishment shall be minor.

2. Determination

A. In the case of accomplices who jointly process two or more judgments on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts in Defendant A and B, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through joint processing of crimes.

A public contest relationship is established if the combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly through cancer.

A person who has not directly involved in the act of execution is held criminal liability as a joint principal offender even if he/she has not been involved in the act of execution.

According to the court below and the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court (excluding the witness L's legal statement in the court below with respect to Defendant B), for the same reasons as the court below properly stated, the defendants are in charge of employee education, etc., and the defendants B, joint defendants C, and D are in charge of personal education, etc., and they are accused of money by deceiving the victims by sharing their roles by recruiting buyers.

In light of the Defendants’ career and status, and the structure and nature of the instant business, it is justifiable for the lower court to have convicted the Defendants on the grounds stated in its judgment.