All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (1) has recommended the victims to make an investment, Defendant A was unaware of the fact that at the time, Defendant B was unable to properly pay the principal and interest of the investment funds received from other investors, and was making a return of part of the investment funds to the victims again. Although there was no fact that Defendant B conspired with other investors, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of the instant case in collusion with the victims to have obtained the funds by deceiving them, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud of relevant legal principles refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be complied with by each other in the transactional relationship, and thus, it is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and that it is the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the other party wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Therefore, in cases where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction if he/she received a notice of certain circumstances, a person who receives the property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance of such circumstances in accordance with the principle of good faith.

Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that such notice has not been given.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 delivered on April 9, 2004). Meanwhile, Article 30 of the Criminal Act is applicable.