All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. There was no intention on the misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B) of the F with respect to the profit-making business of Defendant I and the fraud of investment funds by deceiving victims.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (three years of imprisonment by each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court of the first instance on the assertion that Defendant B had no criminal intent to commit fraud, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant explained as if he had obtained enormous profits by investing in the financial business with a pattern similar to G, a similar receiving company, even though the profit-making business of Hong YI was not verified, even though the Defendant had not previously been identified, as if he had been able to obtain enormous profits from the investment in the financial business.

Recognized.

Therefore, even if the defendant does not have to make profits as stated in the facts charged, it is reasonable to view that the defendant acquired the investment money from the victims by deceit. Therefore, the defendant's criminal intent is recognized and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The Defendant was an investor that made an investment in G, a similar receiving company, and H, the representative of G, was bound by the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Act, and the business structure was suspended. Therefore, despite the fact that the problems of the business structure were fully known, F continued investment with similar marketing franchise and compensation franchise and continued to attract investment, and F, as the head of the I Group after F established the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "I"), the first priority investors have been recruited, and the first priority investors have been recruited. However, I's above marketing franchise was almost the same as that of G, and therefore, the Defendant, which induced investment in G, has a very little possibility of guaranteeing an earning rate like the facts charged, with the I's business structure.