The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 is not a multi-level business operator, but a sales business operator under his jurisdiction was actually paid allowances and installments. The crime of this case was committed by Defendant C alone. Defendant A conspired to commit the crime of this case with Defendant C or did not deceive the victim. Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and calculated the sales commission or the amount of money obtained by fraud. 2) Defendant A, on October 26, 2006, did not have any fact between the victim’s office and the victim’s office, and even though this point was recognized in the trial process of the court below, the court below stated that Defendant A is between the victim’s office at the time of the court below and the victim’s office. This is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in failing to decide on the defendant A's assertion.

3) The lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable. (B) Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is merely an investor and the nominal name holder, and Defendant B was the representative director of H only in the form of the nominal name holder, and there was no entirely involved in the company’s management or specific performance of business, and there was no fact that Defendant A and C conspired to commit the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding Defendant B guilty.

2) The lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) against Defendant B on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable. C. Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles without well-known the business structure of H, Inc., and Defendant A and B was subjected to the discount of installment claims from the victim, by deceiving Defendant A and B.

In other words, Defendant A and B are the same.