유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for four months, and for eight months, for Defendant C.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A, AD, AE, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as well as Defendant AH, AI, AJ, AK, AK, L, and AM, respectively. 2) Since the part directly invested by the Defendants does not constitute an act of reception without delay, this part should be excluded from the guilty part.
B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of unfair sentencing (the sentencing of the Defendant A: 2 years of the suspended sentence in August; the suspended sentence in June; and the Defendant C: 2 years of the suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend an indictment with the content that the facts charged are modified as stated in the following facts constituting an offense, and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
Although there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, which will be examined below.
B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances and legal principles acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence as to the assertion of 1-A and 1-2 of the above, the Defendants conspired with the principal offender E, etc. to attract each investor, etc. while recognizing the fact that the Defendants’ act constitutes an act of receiving the same kind of money, and thereby shared the act of committing the instant crime by inducing each investor, etc., and thereby, it is determined that the Defendants are liable for all other competitors who did not directly participate in the instant crime.
Therefore, the defendants' assertion that the part not directly attracting investment should be excluded from the conviction part.