All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The seized Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B; two years of probation; imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant D; one year of probation; two years of probation; and confiscation; and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for each of the Defendants; and confiscation) are too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants was rendered separately, and the Defendants filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below. This court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case.

Therefore, each crime of the judgment of the court below shall be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is impossible to maintain

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 6 (1) and Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and Articles 6 (1) and 3 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case are acknowledged and contradictory to the defendants, and the actual gains acquired by the crime of this case are not significant, some investors expressed their intent not to want the punishment of the defendants, the Defendants did not have any same criminal record, and the main crime of the crime of this case appears to be L is favorable or reasonable to the defendants.