All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

1. As to each type of punishment (Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment, Defendant C: 2 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the first instance court of the gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing), the Defendants are too vague, and the prosecutor asserts that the above sentence is too excessive, so it is unfair and unfair that the Defendant’s punishment against Defendant A is too unfied.

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing.

The total amount of victims and damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is considerable, profitability for the dangerous FX M&M transactions is advanced, and the quality of the crime is not good. In particular, Defendant A committed the crime of this case at once again during the period of repeated crime, and Defendant C committed the crime of this case, and Defendant C did not recover the damage properly even after having inflicted considerable damage on the victim S.

However, the Defendants agreed with most of the victims of the FX M&C, and the victims concerned did not want to be punished by the Defendants, Defendant AD and AG do not want to be punished, Defendant C does not want to be punished, and Defendant C’s investment funds fraud victim AB does not want to be punished. In full view of other circumstances, including each age, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, relationship with the victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the first instance court against the Defendants cannot be deemed too heavy or too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's above assertion are without merit.

3...