The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed, and the compensation order is revoked.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not disclose that he invested in futures options to investors and attract investment funds. Thus, the Defendant did not engage in collective investment business, which is prohibited by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act punishing a person who engages in collective investment business without obtaining authorization for a financial investment business under the aforementioned Act (Article 444(1) and Article 11 of the said Act). Here, collective investment business means that a person conducts collective investment business by acquiring, disposing of, or managing money, etc. collected from not less than two investors by means of ordinary management instructions from investors or fund management entities, and distributing the result to investors or fund management entities and distributing it to vest in such an act (Article 6 of the said Act). According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court solicited the Defendant to make an investment by explaining as if he/she would be able to obtain a large amount of profit if he/she invests in stocks or apartment subscription rights, etc., and, without obtaining authorization for a financial investment business, it can be recognized that the Defendant engaged in collective investment business by investing in futures options over about one year without authorization for a financial investment business, and whether the Defendant engaged in collective investment business was aware of the details of the instant investment business as above.

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

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is not appropriate in light of the method of crime of this case, the period of crime, the number of victims, and the amount of damage. However, in the case of the above-mentioned argument, it is difficult to say that the crime is committed.