유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반등
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance, ① the victims of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission shall be deemed to fall under many unspecified persons, and ② the facts charged as stated in the Table 2 of Crimes List 2 shall also be deemed to fall under the “act of receiving contributions by promising to pay the full amount of contributions or the amount in excess thereof,” and mistake of facts ( even if the victims are specified as the fraternity members, so the victims Qu, L, and N were only members only after the commencement of investment since they were not the fraternity members at the time of the investment of this case).
A. (1) The first instance court determined that the act of fund-raising was not a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, on the ground that the parties to the fund raising cannot be seen as an unspecified number of persons.
In addition to the above circumstances properly explained by the first instance court, the Defendants received investments from the members of the community, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, i.e., (i) in the case of the facts charged in the crime schedule 1, the Defendants received investments from the members of the community, and (ii) in the case of the facts charged as indicated in the crime chart 2, the Defendants invested in the community, but most of the members stated that they made investments from the community prior to the payment of the community credit amount after paying the community credit amount; and (iii) even the complainants explained that they made payments to the Defendants under the name of the source of investment by using the community credit amount as the main source of the community credit amount operated by the Defendants; and (iv) in the case of the facts charged as indicated in the crime chart 2, the above investment amount was traded by the Defendants.