특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. The Defendant and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine acknowledged the crime as to the crime Nos. 6 through 9 of the list of crimes listed in the judgment of the court below.
The judgment of the court below did not enter into a deception by entering into an agreement on guaranteeing the principal of the attached list 1 through 5, and did not have the intention of deception and the intention of unlawful acquisition.
On August 201, 201, it is difficult to believe the victim's statement, the only evidence that the Defendant agreed to guarantee the principal of the victim at the time when the Defendant entrusted the management of discretionary management assets from the injured party.
There is no personal benefit of the defendant.
The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine with respect to the elements for the formation of fraud and the limitation of free evaluation of evidence.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on its reasoning. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated the legal doctrine on deception of an investment agreement, and made an investment by the victim solely believed and made an investment by the victim when the Defendant solicits the victim to make an investment of KRW 848 million in total, in light of the circumstances in which the Defendant became aware of the victim, the developments leading up to the Defendant being involved in the investment from the damaged party, the details and credibility of the victim’s statement, the management of the investment funds by the Defendant, and other investment funds acquired by the Defendant, as a result of the Defendant’s management, etc.
As can be seen, the defendant rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim with the intention of deception and illegal acquisition.
2) Further to the circumstances stated in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court and the lower court.