The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fraud (not guilty part) fraud: According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant, at the time of receiving the transfer of investment funds from the victim, could not be commercialized B points corresponding to the investment funds, and the B investment method was aware of the fraud, by failing to notify it to the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.

The non-guilty portion of the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act: According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant has received each money listed in the attached Table 4, 5, 8, 14, 17, 19, and 20 of the judgment below as B investment money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 40 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, had an intentional intent to commit a crime committed against the duty of disclosure, and that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant received each of the money listed in the attached Table 4, 5, 8, 14, 17, 19, and 20 of the lower judgment as B investment funds.

Examining the contents of the judgment of the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is that, considering the social harm or harm of illegal monetary multi-level phase, monetary transactions using the same need to be strict, and that the amount of investment contributed by the Defendant and the amount of investors’ damage are not small.