1. Among the accused cases in the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part against the defendant A, C, and D, and the guilty part against the defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first trial date of Defendant A, C, and D explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles;

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants E (the 2-year imprisonment, the 3-year imprisonment, the 2-year imprisonment (the 1-year imprisonment, the 2-year imprisonment, the 1-year imprisonment), the Defendant D (the 1-year imprisonment, the 3-year imprisonment, the 2-year imprisonment, the 1-year imprisonment), and the 1-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) explicitly withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the judgment of the court below on the second instance on the third day of the misunderstanding of facts. Of the judgment of the court below on the first instance, with respect to the criminal facts of each of the instant cases, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) played a role of soliciting circulations and withdrawals, but there is no fact that the role of inducing transfer to victims by posting an article on the Internet website and soliciting withdrawals is too unreasonable. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (Article 1:5 years and June 6, 2012, and 2: 2 years imprisonment) of the judgment on the first instance is too unreasonable.

C. A prosecutor (as to the judgment of the court of first instance), mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (as to the defendant A, B, C, and D) contain some arguments of misunderstanding of legal principles. (As to the defendant A, C, and D), the defendant not guilty portion of the defendant A (as to the defendant A, B, C, and D, Nos. 170-542 of the crime inundation No. 20199 of the crime sight table No. 170-542 of the defendant B, C, and D were to withdraw the money remitted to the defendant B, C, and D, and the N was to keep contact with the defendant C by the end of March 2019, and did not appear to eliminate the influence on the execution of the crime, such as actively endeavoring to prevent other competitors from committing the crime. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped from the public conspiracy relationship even after March 7, 2019.