The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of 2006 erroneous determination of facts, according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not to make the advertisement of the external company by the electronic display in the instant case impossible, but to take the relevant procedures, such as the modification of the content of the registration of the advertising agency business and the content of the advertisement. Defendant A was unable to recognize that the advertisement of the external company at the time was impossible, and the victim was not aware of and made an investment in the belief that the advertisement of the external company is possible. As such, Defendant A did not induce the victim with the intent to commit fraud, and the victim did not act as a dispositive act with the belief of the victim’s speech, even though the victim did not have committed a dispositive act with the intent to commit fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant A was guilty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if it is found that Defendant A was guilty, in light of the situation and the present situation where Defendant A had been sentenced to imprisonment,

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) fraud listed in paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below. (1) Since the victim, who did not have an open recruitment relation, had already caused investment by Defendant A’s investment solicitation before Defendant B met, the court below acknowledged the Defendants’ open recruitment relation, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the open recruitment relation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Although Defendant B did not have any awareness of the criminal intent of deception and deception, such as the fact that he had endeavored to receive the advertisement from an external company without knowing that it is impossible to advertise the external company on the electronic display board of this case, the judgment of the court below which recognized the criminal intent of deception and the deception of Defendant B was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.