특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant is not a joint principal offender but an assistant offender” in the second trial date and the defense counsel’s written opinion. However, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant is not a joint principal offender, but a joint principal offender.” However, the Defendant’s defense counsel raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
B. A review by AB ex officio reveals that: (a) around May 201, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court; (b) in other words, E introduced an examiner in charge of managing non-funds to the victim by telephone, “on deposit of KRW 500 million with the former president’s funds, the said person would make a loan of KRW 10 billion with the former president’s funds, and return KRW 500 million to the victim; and (c) around that time, the Defendant was a specialist to make funds by telephone to the victim.
Inasmuch as the president was aware of the situation in which he was the president, he made a false statement that he would be able to well solve, and the Defendant, in collusion with E and I at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, in collusion with E and I, received KRW 500 million from the damaged party to receive a false statement as if he could be able to obtain a loan of business funds from the damaged party, and attempted to use the money remaining after preparing money from the damaged party to return money to another person as business funds E and I.
In order to provide money to E and I through a victim, he/she is able to provide money with a victim in the middle of this year.
A statement was made to the effect that the Defendant and E, and I, made several calls to the effect that their convictions were confidented, and that the Defendant and E, and I, in this case are most responsible for them.
I think:
“The same shall apply to three questions “....”
I think I
The Defendant responded to “” and the lower judgment.