The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The judgment below

(2).

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The part concerning the fraud of investment in mistake of facts and the act of receiving money without delay (Article 1 and 3 of the criminal facts in the market) did not have any fact that the defendant had to guarantee the principal of investors and there was no intention to acquire the investment money.

The Defendant explained that there was a security ratio problem due to the transaction of credit stocks (the total asset value of the stock in the stock account and the purchase value of the stock) due to unexpected price of the borrowed money (the stock purchase as collateral) and borrowed money from the victim as the price of the borrowed money continues, the Defendant explained this fact as the price of the borrowed money continues, and converted the money into the investment money with the consent of the victim.

Therefore, there was no deception of the victim and there was no intention of fraud.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant, without any limit on the amount or time, received investments from investors on the last day of the 10th of each month when the defendant wants to pay the principal to investors on the 20th of the 10th of each month, and explained that the defendant's long-term principal should not be sold, and in such sense, the name of the fund is "Y", and the name of the fund is "Y", and the situation of the investment is difficult to prevent the difference between the price and the price, and even if it was difficult for investors to pay the principal, the defendant announced that "the payment should be made six months after the date of filing the application for the withdrawal of the principal" without adjusting the investment principal, and the defendant also paid the principal to investors with personal loans.

According to the above facts, the defendant did not directly use the term "principal guarantee".

Even if the investors want, the principal at a certain time.