특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The part concerning Defendant A, B, E, and H among the original judgment of the first instance, and the second and third original judgment shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A, B (an unjust form) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D, E, F, G, and H1) M&D violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is limited to aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the Defendants do not constitute a co-principal.
B) Since Defendant F and G accepted only the sum of KRW 1.2 billion fraud, there was no conspiracy for the part exceeding KRW 1.2 billion out of the sum of KRW 3,610,500,000, and there was no intention to commit fraud. 2) The statement between the victim and the witness that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim is not reliable, and there was no intention to commit an indecent act against the Defendant.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable. (c) Whether Defendant I, J, K, and L1 is misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is limited to aiding and abetting the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and not joint principal offender. (B) Defendant K has accepted only the total amount of 1.8 billion won. As such, there was no public offering of more than 1.8 billion won out of the instant fraud amount of KRW 2,502,851,030, and there was no intention to commit fraud.
2) The Defendant withdrawn cash after the completion of the crime of defraudation of the instant crime by fraud (Defendant I) against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). This constitutes an ex post facto aiding and abetting and thus cannot be punished as an aiding and abetting crime.
B) Even if the Defendant constitutes an aiding and abetting offender, since the Defendant withdrawn only 1.4 billion won, it cannot be deemed that aiding and abetting more than 1.4 billion won out of 6.4 billion won. 3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
(1) Defendant D with respect to mistake of facts (defendant D, E, F, G, and H).