2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). A.

Defendant

A In addition to the principal guarantee, the Defendant promised to pay the proceeds of 2% to 4% a month or to transfer the ownership of a specific apartment household to be acquired through a real estate development project, and received money in excess of a total of 1.8 billion won from many unspecified persons under the pretext of investment in each project of this case. In the process, the Defendant deceiving 14 victims, thereby deceiving 2.5 billion won a large amount of money which is close to 2.5 billion won, is very poor

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime, not against the past, even though he had been sentenced to punishment due to a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Fund-Raising Business Act.

Even if the Defendant appropriated all the money paid to the victims as a profit-making principal while operating the fund by the so-called “competing” method, most of the damage has not been recovered up to now.

The victims want to severe punishment against the defendant.

However, the equity should be considered in the case of judgment at the same time with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the judgment of the court below.

The defendant, while denying the crime of fraud, seems to have reached the first instance, shows an attitude against the defendant by recognizing all of his errors at the latest.

The victims also desire to obtain high-income profits in a short period without careful investment judgment.