The judgment below

All convictions shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B for one year, respectively.

1. The part of the crime of fraud in the annexed list of crimes against Defendant A and F, No. 132, 141, 142, and 143 in the scope of adjudication, was judged not guilty on the ground of the judgment below, and since the prosecutor did not appeal against this, the part of the acquittal in the above ground was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed with respect to this part, and only the remainder is decided as follows.

2. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) was guilty of the facts as to the guilty portion) Defendant A did not have any deceitful act that misleads the victims by notifying the victims of false facts, thereby making them enter the victims into a mistake, and Defendant F’s horses trust, and did not have the intent of defraudation. Therefore, fraud is not established.

B) Since the amount of damage based on a document stating the personal information of the shareholder and the person subject to distribution does not coincide with the actual amount of damage, at least 4,5,66,207,208,209,226,232, and 235 of the attached list of crimes is written excessively.

2) The Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) is not established with respect to the door-to-door Sales, etc. (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) No. 66, 132, 141, 142, and 143, a list of crimes committed by misapprehending the legal principles as to the guilty portion or an investment of movable property.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of forfeiture) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the guilty portion) The instant company did not have any provision of the principal guarantee agreement to investors, and thus, this Act does not apply to the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt (hereinafter “Similar Receipt Act”).

B) Defendant B merely believed Defendant A and did not have any violation of the Act on the Receipt of Similar Acts and the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and there is no intention in collusion with Defendant A and F.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.