All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the acquittal portion), even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to operate the instant number system until the end of the instant number system, the Defendant operated the system in the mind that he would pay guidance money to his relatives, and did not pay guidance money to the members after 17th. Therefore, the Defendant’s criminal intent is recognized.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court determined this part of the facts charged: (a) properly received the guidance money up to the 16th fraternity of this case; (b) the Defendant also paid the guidance money up to that time; and (c) the part of the fraternity that received the guidance money in the order of priority, did not pay the guidance money properly (the victim also did not pay three of the three of the guidance money in this court).

(3) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was unable to properly operate the instant system around December 2014; and (b) the Defendant received KRW 17.3 million, around December 2014, by deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged; (c) the Defendant received KRW 18.1 million, around April 2015; and (d) the Defendant received KRW 5.4 million, around October 2015, by deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

It is difficult to conclude that this part of the facts charged was proven without reasonable doubt only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Not deemed insufficient

On the other hand, the Court acquitted the defendant.

The following circumstances revealed by the court below, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below in light of the above circumstances, i.e., (1) according to the Defendant’s account details (Local Agriculture and Livestock CooperativesO), the Defendant is a person who is the defendant from the above account that was managed.