유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the crime list of the facts charged of this case, the part of the Defendant’s total amount of money invested is a security at the time of receiving money, or a contract for lending and borrowing money was concluded, which merely borrowed money on the premise of a specific place of use, and thus does not constitute “the act of raising money from an unspecified number of unspecified persons” but the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in April of one year and four months, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the case of an ex officio judgment, the prosecutor changed “from around April 12, 2013” to “from around June 21, 2012,” and “from around 35,137,000,000 won in total over 80 times as shown in the annexed Table No. 15” to “from 36 to 90 times as shown in the annexed Table No. 36”, and “the list of crimes” to “the list of crimes” was added to “the list of crimes (1)”, and filed an application for changes in indictment to “the list of crimes” to “the list of crimes (2)”, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as the subject of this case changed to “the list of crimes.”
However, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court (the Defendant also claims the same purport with respect to Q2 added in the trial). (1) In determining the assertion of mistake as to the facts, Article 3 of the Regulation on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Contracts Act prohibits similar reception, which prohibits “the payment of the total amount of investment or the amount exceeding the amount of the investment in the future” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “the act of receiving the investment” as an act of receiving similar amounts, and the legislative intent of regulating the act of receiving similar amounts is to grant permission under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.