사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court alone.
1. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal, the crime indicated in the facts charged of this case falls under one fraud, in view of the following: (a) the victim is one person; (b) the defendant, for a short period, by allowing the victim to join the same form of system by chain; and (c) the method of committing the crime is identical; and (d) the identity of the criminal intent is recognized.
Nevertheless, on the premise that the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case is concurrent crimes by each community, the court below rejected the prosecution on the ground that it does not specify which part of the majority of the charges in this case was operated by the defendant, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant: (a) made up of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Building Co., Ltd. 833 and 12 members; (b) made up of each share and each share of 4.20,000 won per share to the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the shares
The Defendant, from February 2010 to around February 2010, operated the above number gauge at the same time, when some of the fraternitys fail to pay the fraternitys, he diverts the fraternitys deposited in another fraternity to the fraternitys with unpaid fraternitys, or, in order to operate the normal fraternitys, he does not pay the fraternitys for a certain period of time, even though the fraternitys should be paid each time according to the sequences. However, the Defendant operated the fraternity by paying the fraternitys to the number of the fraternitys who want to receive the higher interest income at a higher level, and at the same time, he borrowed the fraternitys to D and receives interest.