사기등
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B Imprisonment for one year and six months, and Defendant C for a fine of KRW 10,000,000, respectively.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the fraud of Defendant A, B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing 1), the Defendants presented the vision of virtual currency and sold RCos in genuine virtual currency, the Defendants did not deceiving the victim or have caused damage due to the instant case.
B) Since the Defendants did not take multi-level sales methods to obtain money, in determining the fraud, the sales method of Rcoin is not considered in determining the fraud, and the Defendants abolished the multi-level sales method after July 2016.
C) The Defendants were developed to function as a means of payment, such as withdrawing R Cos in cash using ATM devices or developing and establishing a system for AS through which goods can be purchased as R Cos.
D) There was no fact that the Defendants fabricated the market price of RCo in the S Exchange.
In addition, the victims purchased RCos with the knowledge that the price of the S Exchange is not determined by supply and demand, and thus the Defendants determined and sold the price as a monopoly or monopoly seller of RCos.
the victims of this case.
shall not be deemed to exist.
E) The Defendants did not use the investment funds received from victims as various allowances, the principal of investment, and the center operating support funds.
In addition, the Defendants did not operate the business in a way to prevent the return.
F) The Defendants are expected to pay the principal of investment or the proceeds of investment.
there is no fact prescribed and there is no obligation to pay it.
G) In light of the nature of the investment, the issue of whether the R Co has increased its value cannot be confirmed. There was no fact that the Defendants enticed the victims that the R Co would ensure the continuous increase of value or that the R Co would continuously increase its value.
H) The Defendants notified the risks of investment, and did not properly notify the risks of domestic investment.