특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
1. The lower court dismissed each of the applications for compensation filed by the petitioner C and D for compensation filed by the petitioner C and D (the Suwon District Court at the early 226, early 2017, early 464, early 2017, respectively).
Therefore, pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation. Thus, the case for which an application for compensation is filed is immediately determined and the rejection of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles [the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") and the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the fraud) were known to the defendant that he would not return, and it does not constitute deception, and since the amount higher than the amount paid to the defendant was paid by the defendant, there is no loss. Even if the crime was established, the F does not constitute a crime of violation of the Act
B) The victims, including the victims H, K, and J, who were employees of the Defendant, were aware of the fact that the Defendant was unable to return, and thus do not constitute deception, and most of them were paid by the Defendant, and thus there is no damage.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.
3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.
A. In a case where the lower court’s application for changes in indictment was filed on December 18, 2017 and the lower court’s measure 1) do not pose a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s defense right, the lower court’s basic facts are identical to those of the facts charged.