Defendant

A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant A’s mistake of the grounds for appeal, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as a loan to the victims, and misunderstanding the victims’ investment dividends.

Since the defendant did not introduce the victims as advisers or officers and employees of a securities company by himself/herself, and explained the victims that they invested not only in the claims but also in the safe superior state, there is no fact of deceiving the victims.

Since the Defendant paid all the profits to be paid to the victims and the principal to be returned by August 31, 2013, the Defendant did not have any negligence on the part of the defrauded.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable (six years of imprisonment).

The prosecutor's misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Defendant B), ① the Defendant merely introduced the Victim D, E, and F to the Victim D, E, and F, and the Defendant took an active role in making investments to A by not later than the end that the victims were able to see their own re-performance and see that they would be able to believe themselves and be responsible for the victims' investments.

② In light of the statement of the court below by the victim D in the court below, the defendant is not bound to introduce A, and the fact that he actively inducedd the victims is recognized.

③ In light of the victim E’s statement in the court below’s court below, the defendant’s active control over the crime of this case was over.

It is reasonable to view it.

(4) The defendant was unaware of the details of A's investment business.

Even if A invests in shares that are not bonds, the fact that A did not properly make investments, and that it did not raise the profits guaranteed to the victims, and the profits agreed to be the investments.