유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
1. The part of the judgment below against Defendant A and Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant C.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for Defendant A, eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for Defendant B, and two years of suspended execution for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (as to Defendant A) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal against Defendant A and Defendant C was made, the prosecutor examined the reasoning for appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment by adding some of the crimes as stated in the following criminal facts to Defendant A and Defendant C. The court permitted this and permitted this, and the part added as mentioned above should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to a single comprehensive crime as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants could no longer be maintained.
3. We examine the judgment on Defendant B’s unfair argument of sentencing, even though the Defendant was the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment, and even if considering the fact that all of the investors were led to the confession of the crime of this case, and that some of the investors want to take the Defendant’s preference, similar receiving acts like the crime of this case, such as the crime of this case, need to be strictly punished for a serious social harm, such as disturbing sound financial order, and as such, it is necessary to distortly punish a large number of victims. The total sum of investment amounts from the crime of this case, including the fact that the amount of 3.4 billion won, exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, motive, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the court below’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and Defendant A.