특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles 1) The victims of the 2017 High 333 Incident in the lower judgment is merely an investment in money to the Defendant even though the Defendant knew that he/she carries out an illegal Internet gambling, not an investment in money with the Defendant’s belief that he/she will invest in the company fund.
Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victims.
2) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victim I in the case of "2017 High 333, the lower court did not make all investments.
Of the money, KRW 29,100,000,000,000,000,000,000 per annum 2,000,00 of the charges charged, was borrowed from the victim of the office operation expenses
Therefore, the court below applied Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the premise that the amount of fraud to the victim is more than 500 million won because the amount of fraud is not the amount of 58.9 billion won as stated in the facts charged.
3) In the case of 2017 High 384, the lower court determined that the mobile phone price and sales commission set off against SK Telecom Co., Ltd., and thus, the said company cannot be the subject of damage.
4) Regarding the case of 2017 High 389, the lower court held that the loans and leases did not have any intention or ability to pay them from the beginning, and only did not pay them properly due to the suspension of operation of a mobile phone sales store.
In March of 2014, the number of the leased vehicle and the early repayment fee were paid, and the vehicle was transferred to the lease company.
B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the holding of the lower court) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle.