All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

All of the applicants for compensation are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below (for defendant A: 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment; 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment; 2 years and 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We also examine the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The Defendants are fully aware of each of the crimes in this case and are against the law.

By October 2018, allowances were paid to the victims until the victims, and the actual amount of damage seems to be less than the amount of damage as stated in each of the facts charged of this case.

The victims have paid the investment without properly verifying the multi-stage and the business related to the receipt of the same kind of money in the short term. It is not deemed that the victims are not responsible for the occurrence and expansion of losses, and some victims are likely to have expanded damage by re-investment of the received profits.

At the time of the instant case, Defendant A did not have criminal records exceeding the fine, and Defendant B did not have any criminal records other than three times of fine according to the instant crime, and Defendant C did not have any criminal records.

Defendant

In the case of A, the equity should be taken into account when the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive at the same time as fraud.

Defendant

C does not seem to have accrued any private interest in addition to the allowances received from the LABD.

This is favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, even though the defendant AB operated a multi-level company and operated a large number of victims, he again established the D organization with the same criminal law and participated in the crime of this case by participating in the defendant B, C, etc.

Defendant

A used the dividend amount corresponding to AB to the victims of existing enterprises, such as AB, for agreed or private purposes, and Defendant B also uses the amount corresponding to the monthly dividends.