The judgment below

Of those, the guilty part against Defendant G shall be reversed.

Defendant

G shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and eight months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: The Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant crime, conviction of the possibility of success in the business, and attracting investors, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years and eight months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: ① the Defendant was aware of the success possibility of the business and led to investment, so there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud, ② there was no participation in the crime No. 2.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

F. Defendant F1) misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant was not willing to commit a fraud.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

G. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts: ① the Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime by deception, ② the Defendant did not participate in the crime of paragraph 2 of the crime.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

H. Defendant H1) misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant did not have conspired to commit a crime of fraud, and the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation because it had induced investment by ensuring the success of the business.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

I. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts: The lower court acquitted part of the facts charged on the ground that the identity of the victim is not verified even if the amount of damage is confirmed.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts