The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five and half years, for a period of two years, for a defendant B, and for a period of two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (six years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, E, and F1 believed that the investment principal and the proceeds will be paid normally, so there was no dolusible intention in fraud, and therefore, the Defendants also invested in the instant project in the name of the principal or his family members, and the Defendants did not commit a joint principal offender in fraud in collusion with the Defendant A. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant B, C: imprisonment of three years and six months, Defendant E: imprisonment of two years, Defendant F: imprisonment of one year and six months, probation period of execution, social service 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant D’s imprisonment with labor (three years of imprisonment) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The public prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the court below to the rest of the defendants except the defendants A (the defendant B and C: three years and six months of imprisonment; the defendant D; the imprisonment of two years; the defendant E; the imprisonment of one and half years; the probation of one year and six years; the probation of three years; the community service work of 120 hours; the defendant G: the imprisonment of one year; the probation of one year; the probation of two years; the community service work of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio determination Defendants and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with regard to the Defendants’ partial changes in the facts charged at the trial. Since this Court permitted this, the part of the judgment of the court below, which is based on the initial facts charged, cannot be maintained any further.

However, despite the amendments to the indictment above, since the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant B, C, E, and F is still subject to the judgment of this court, it shall be examined separately below.

(b) mistake of facts by Defendant B, C, E, and F.