The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

A, C, D, E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, E, J, and N’s assertion of mistake of facts: Defendant A is not a business entity No. 2, but an active act such as the recruitment of investors. 2) Defendant B is not a business entity higher than the head of the center.

It is improper to hold the defendant responsible for the portion which the defendant did not participate.

The Defendant was not from February 2015, but from March 2015, the Defendant participated in the business.

3) Defendant E: not a superior business operator. 4) Defendant J is not a head of the center level.

5) Defendant N: not a superior business operator. B. Defendant A, B, C, D, E, J, K, K, L, N,O, Q, and R’s respective punishments of the lower court against the above Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing. (c) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the mistake of facts against Defendant D,O, S, U, and X, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on all of the acquittal parts of the lower judgment, and found the Defendants not guilty on this part of the lower judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2 The lower court’s respective sentence against the above Defendants C, D, E,O, S, U, V, W, and X on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination as to the mistake of facts by Defendant A, B, E, J, and N

A. The above Defendants are disputing their business status.

The indictment of this case or the criminal facts in the decision of the court below indicate the status of the above Defendants in the business as the upper-tier business operator, the head of the center level higher business operator, etc.

However, it is sufficiently recognized by the evidence of the court below that all the above Defendants constituted a superior business operator who participated in each of the crimes of this case while hiring a business operator under his own foundation or lectures or explanation activities, and there is a difference in the degree of involvement in each of the crimes according to the location of the above Defendants’ business, the number of subordinate business operators and investors, the received amount, and the details of activities. The prosecutor and the court below distinguish such difference.