The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant acquired the investment money in collusion with D.

full recognition may be accepted.

Nevertheless, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to conclude that the defendant acted in collusion with D, or that there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence, three years of suspended sentence, one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant purchased a department store at a discount rate of 2% from around June 2014 to around 10% from among D and ordinary cities, and sold at a discount rate of 8% to 10%, and sold at a discount rate of 5% to 2% to 5%, and the merchandise coupon distribution business for which profits are raised at 2% to 5%, and the Defendant was engaged in a merchandise coupon distribution business. The Defendant: (a) purchased merchandise coupons by attracting investors to attract investment; (b) purchased merchandise coupons by operating investment money, and (c) sold them to obtain profits by selling them.

However, the fact is that the defendant invested in D in an amount equivalent to KRW 31.5 million in order to verify whether the above merchandise coupon distribution business was properly conducted on May 2014, which was prior to the commencement of the business. However, although the principal was not recovered, the investor began to operate a merchandise coupon trading business as a partnership business, and the investor has paid a plan to return the principal after one year with a return rate of 2% per month, or a 1% per month to the financial designer who introduces investors, so the profit was dead, and it was extremely difficult for the defendant to raise a profit of 36% per annum against the total amount of investment, and it was not secured as a large-scale seller who can sell with an adequate return rate of profit.