특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
[Defendant A]
1. All the parts of the first instance judgment (excluding the part of each compensation order) and the second lower judgment against the accused.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) Of the first judgment of the lower court, Defendant A of the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission is the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission.
) There is no “act of fund-raising without permission” prohibited by this. The inquiry of the lower court [Attachment 1] [Attachment 3 [Attachment 1] of this Judgment.
Under the above, part of the [limited to Table 1] is only a charge that does not prove a crime or is not a victim of a crime.
Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges pertaining to the act of fund-raising without delay.
2) Of the first judgment of the lower court, Defendant A by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud part, and the second judgment of the lower court on the mistake of facts as to part of fraud part of the lower judgment, the period from July 11, 2014 to December 30, 2015 (hereinafter “dispute period”) shall be
As the money received from investors has been used to actually invest in accordance with the original purpose, there is no money acquired by investors during the dispute period. Nevertheless, the first and second instances of the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes corresponding to the dispute period (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”).
(3) Of the first instance judgment, Defendant A did not have the position of “a person who administers another’s business,” which is a constituent element for establishing a crime of breach of trust, in relation to the victim AH, as to the part concerning the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Misappropriation) among the first instance judgment, Defendant A did not have the position of “a person who administers another’s business,” which is an element for establishing a crime of breach of trust.
Nevertheless, the first instance judgment is erroneous or erroneous.