The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, up to May 22, 2015, may guarantee the payment of allowances and principal to investors by misunderstanding the fact (as to the case of 2017 Highest 9107, the Defendant may guarantee the payment of allowances and principal to investors by making profits from the business of selling handphones (hereinafter “E”).

Since it was believed that there was no intention to commit fraud with respect to the investment money received by May 22, 2015.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the fact that the unfair criminal defendant recognized most of the facts charged, the victims were paid a considerable amount of the investment amount from E as allowances, most of the Defendant’s allowances were paid back to the victims; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim N and L; (c) the Defendant partially discharged the remainder victims; and (d) the Defendant’s primary and health was not good.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant was aware of, from the beginning, that E had no intent or ability to pay the principal and interest agreed upon to investors, and was given investment funds by soliciting the victims.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant has committed the crime of defraudation of all the investment money received from victims.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) E would pay to investors at least 120% of the principal (20% of the principal interest) within a half-month in the case of a single-month period, and at least 190% of the principal (15% of the principal interest per month x 6 months) within a six-month period in the case of a monthly change.

The above return on investment itself is considerably high to the extent that it is impossible to achieve a normal business operation, and the defendant was also aware that 18% of the investment money is paid as an allowance to the same recruitment book as himself/herself.

Therefore, the Defendant actually receives the above profits from investors.