The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed). The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance in light of the evidence duly admitted, the court below, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, by exaggerationing the possibility of success in the business and the certainty of profit within a short period of time, and acquired investment money from the victims so harshly.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the judgment of conviction is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the fact by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intention of fraud, or omitting judgment.

2. For a repeated crime prescribed in Article 35 of the Criminal Act, punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment shall be completed or exempted, and then a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment shall be again committed within three years after the execution thereof is completed or exempted. In such cases, whether a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has been committed shall be determined based on whether such crime has been committed;

Therefore, it is sufficient that the commencement of a repeated crime has been completed within a three-year period, and it does not have to reach the period (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9858 delivered on April 7, 2006). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable in that the lower court aggravated the aggravation of repeated crime on the ground that the performance of the charges regarding the charges regarding the crime No. 1 and No. 3 attached Table No. 1 in the judgment of the first instance was commenced within the period of repeated crime, and contrary to logical and empirical rules, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for the aggravation of repeated crime, or by misapprehending the fact that it exceeded the bounds of the principle of free conviction, contrary to the rules of logic and experience.

3. In addition, other grounds of appeal are criminal litigation law.