The part of the judgment of the first instance, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation, shall be reversed.

The Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two hours of community service order) against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

나. 피고인 B ⑴ 사실오인 및 법리오해 ㈎ H 주식회사(이하 ‘H’라 한다) 관련 사기의 점 및 유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반의 점 피고인 B는 가장 큰 투자자이자 피해자일 뿐 피고인 A과 공모하여 피해자들을 기망하여 투자금을 편취하지 않았고, H의 회사 경영이나 자금유치에 관여하지도 않았다.

㈏ 주식투자 관련 사기의 점 피고인 B는 피해자 F, I에게 작전주 등을 언급하며 주식투자를 권유한 사실이 없다.

The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B asserted the same purport in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected the argument by stating in detail the following judgments in the summary of the evidence.

In comparison with the records, the first instance judgment is just and acceptable, and it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only with the statement of the party witness M and the evidence additionally submitted by the defendant in the trial.

Defendant

B's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor, Defendant A recognized the crime and contradicts the wrongness.

In relation to the joint criminal conduct, the Defendants agreed to pay the amount of damage to the victim I and L, and the victim F seems to have recovered a considerable portion of the amount of damage.

Each of the instant offenses committed by the Defendants ought to be taken into account at the same time in each criminal fraud for which the judgment in the first instance becomes final and conclusive and in the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, at the time of each of the crimes of this case, Defendant A was committed for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B was identical.