The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

In this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B) and the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “crime list”).

(2) The amount of money deposited once a year is 11,67,81,84 shall be deposited by the Defendant as the company’s operating fund, and it shall not be deposited by the investment. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts. 2) The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission and Fraud No. 11, 29, 67, 81, and 84, No. 1, 29, 67, 84, and fraud.

B. Defendant B, at the investigation agency and the court below’s decision, led Defendant B to a confession of all the facts charged in the above part of the charges No. 11, 67, 81, and 84, No. 1 year of the crime sight list of Defendant B.

However, according to the records, each confession made by Defendant B at the investigation agency and the court of original instance on the basis of the deposit details of the passbook used by Defendant B while committing the instant crime, it is merely a statement that Defendant B was in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and that Defendant B was committed a fraud as a whole upon receiving a list of the crime list 1 from the investigation agency, and it did not separately confession as to any of the facts charged.

As to the list 11,67,81,84 No. 1 of the crime sight table, Defendant B stated to the effect that the police did not specify the depositor as to the portion that Defendant B did not receive an investment since Defendant B deposited the company’s required funds. Upon examining the crime sight table, the part that was not written by the depositor was denied, and that part was excluded from the list 1 of the crime sight table, but the part was excluded from the list 1 of the crime sight table.