The judgment of the court below (excluding the dismissal part of an application for compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) With respect to the fraud of the victim BE and N, the Defendant did not deceiving the victims.

Although it is somewhat unclear whether the defendant asserts as the ground of appeal that the defendant misleads the victim BE and N about the fraud, it is somewhat unclear whether the defendant asserts as the ground of appeal, but it is not true that the defendant deceives the victims about the remaining fraud in Section 2-e of the Reasons for Appeal submitted by the national defense counsel.

As stated in “,” and did not withdraw the assertion of mistake as to the point of fraud against the above persons, it is deemed that the defendant contests it.

2) In relation to the fraud of the victim AC, the victim only made an investment in the defendant at the request of F, who is the offender, and the defendant did not deceive the victim who was not well aware of.

3) In relation to the fraud of the victim P, if the Defendant borrowed 10 million won or more from the victim, but repaid the principal to June 30, 2013, which was six months after the date, and sold the said shares above 100 million won or more, the profit was agreed to be half-minute, and as such, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation, since the Defendant paid 7 million won or more as the interest per month under the above agreement.

4) In relation to the embezzlement, the subject of the lease contract for the passenger car of bents is the BM and the first offer of the said passenger car as security is the BM, and the Defendant merely listened to the BM’s horse and offered the said car as security, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

B. Although it was true that the Defendant received money from five investors, including misunderstanding F, pursuant to an individual delegation agreement with a specific person, and the Defendant did not engage in a business of raising funds from many unspecified persons and did not engage in a financial investment business, it is a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.