자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of one year, the suspended execution of three years, the fine of 15 million won, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Each of the crimes of this case is deemed to be unfair and anti-social in that it distributes the so-called breabbbbed bill, which is a false means of payment, and establishes social trust in the transaction of bills, which is not likely to settle.
The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on a systematic and systematic basis with accomplices for a long time, and the sum of the amount of the bill issued in the breathbing area, which was distributed due to each of the instant crimes, reaches approximately KRW 16.2 billion.
The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, including three times of imprisonment.
Even when considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and against whom the Defendant was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable, in full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, means and consequence, etc., and the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings.
[2] Meanwhile, the Defendant’s assertion that each of the instant crimes was subject to the statute of limitations in the last statement process rather than on the grounds of appeal. However, the statutory penalty for the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which applies to each of the instant crimes, is a fine not exceeding five years (Article 444 Subparag. 22 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act) or a fine not exceeding 200 million won (Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The statute of limitations is seven years pursuant to Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Each of the instant crimes was committed from January 2012 to January 2013, and the public prosecution was instituted on January 18, 2018, which was seven years prior to the statute of limitations, and thus, the Defendant’s prosecution and assertion are groundless).
3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.