All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendants did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged; (b) the victim was not listed in the U.S. Corporation (hereinafter “D”) until the time, and (c) the victim knew that it would take a considerable time due to the need to undergo various stages of listing; and (d) the victim made an investment in the shares of the said Company upon its own decision.

In addition, each share of the victim has been deposited in the above company, and the victim also entered the shares of the company in M, and the purchase procedure of the shares was normally conducted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the victim’s purchase of D shares after hearing the statements from the Defendants in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court as stated in the facts charged,

Defendant A has made a consistent statement (the fact that the Defendants acquired the shares price by deception in the original trial).

“A victim’s non-guilty application for punishment was submitted in the first instance, and the defense counsel presented the victim’s factual confirmation to the same effect. However, the above non-written application for punishment and factual confirmation was prepared by the injured party to prevent the Defendants from being punished, and it is difficult to believe the contents of the written application as they are, in its entirety, in the prosecutor’s investigation. The Defendant B also stated that “The second punishment was in the process of growing the urology to the urology, but there was a lot of shares of the company holding the son’s own possession of the urology, and if so, there was little reason to believe that the son would try to subsidize the hospital expenses of the son.

The Defendants stated that they were “,” and even based on the Defendants’ statements, at the time.