The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Defendants (excluding the part dismissing an application for compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. The lower court dismissed all of the applications for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the above application for compensation order became final and conclusive immediately.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which rejected a request for compensation order shall be excluded from the scope of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A did not have made an agreement to guarantee the principal, and there is no criminal intent as to the violation of the above law. In relation to L-related fraud (the part in the case of this case) Defendant A was merely a victim who was deceiving M and U, etc., Defendant A did not in collusion with the victims, and there was no criminal intent to commit fraud. Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of both violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of L related to L and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The court below's punishment (six years of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in relation to L-related frauds, Defendant B is merely a victim who was deceiving by M and U, etc. with regard to L-related frauds, and there is no fact of deceiving the victims, and Defendant B was not guilty of the whole frauds on different premises without the intent to commit the crime of deceptions. Defendant B was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) against Defendant B is too unreasonable

3. Determination as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission to Defendant A

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence in its holding.