The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant D (D, hereinafter “D”)

(2) If the defendant, who is a foreign professional instructor in China, was a foreign professional instructor in collusion with the Korean local business operators, is forced to force a foreign foreigner in Hong Kong, he/she cannot be punished for fraud by applying the Korean Criminal Act.

On October 27, 2020, the defendant submitted a summary of the oral argument on October 27, 2020, and added non-existence of jurisdiction to the grounds for appeal.

3) In relation to the fraud, the Defendant sufficiently explained the risk of investment, and the victims at the time of investment (O, hereinafter “O”).

(4) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Activities without being listed, it is difficult to see that the Defendant deceivings victims because it is well known that it is difficult to engradize without being listed yet. (4) It does not constitute “fund raising” even if U Co constitutes goods not money, and thus, it does not constitute “money raising” even if it is made an investment in O as U Co, and (2) as non-listed virtual currency, O, which is larger than theO invested by the Defendant for others.

Even if it cannot be evaluated as having agreed to guarantee the principal, and the investment of this case is to pay dividends to O according to the possibility of price fluctuation by O. Since listing potential and market price fluctuations are closely related to the content and failure of the investment of this case, it is not agreed to pay U in whole or in excess of the invested U nose.

5 In relation to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, ① U Co is goods, and investment is not a “money transaction” without trade of goods or services, or under pre-transaction of goods or services, and ② D is an entity as a multi-level organization.