The judgment below

The part on Defendant B, C, and D (including the part on acquittal for each reason) shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B, C.

The lower court dismissed all of the Defendants’ application for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the said application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

In addition, the lower court acquitted the Defendants as to the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, which was 30,000 won on January 11, 201 against the victim I and 5,40,000 won on L on April 12, 2011, and convicted the Defendants as to the remainder.

Accordingly, only the Defendants appealed against the aforementioned guilty portion as follows, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasons.

In such a case, according to the principle of non-guilty appeal, the part of acquittal on the ground is also judged in the trial together with the guilty part. However, the part of acquittal on the ground is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, this part cannot be judged again by the court.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion with respect to the part not guilty for the above reasons is followed, and this Court does not decide separately.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous (defendant A, D) Defendant A is not a person who is not an operator of the O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) or T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”), and there is no fact that the victims provided an explanation to the same effect as the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant intentionally acquired money from victims.

Defendant

D Defendant D is merely engaged in business affairs, such as computerized input assistance, and there is no fact that he sold goods or invited investment.

Therefore, it is true.