특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine were aware of and invested in C, G, etc. with legitimate investment, and there was no intent to receive similar money, and there was no intention to commit a crime of aiding and abetting after July 21, 2015, when the Defendant acted as the branch office of “D”, and there was no conspiracy to commit a crime of aiding and abetting the act of receiving similar money with C.
Moreover, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize the conspiracy relation with C, etc. without recognizing the conspiracy relation with C, etc. as to the fraud of the defendant.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant explained that the principal of the victims is guaranteed and that 10% of the monthly investment amount is paid as profits, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts in the past, and that the Defendant’s promise to guarantee principal and to provide high-income through the instant FX M&C transaction is false.
In light of the fact that it appears, the intention of defraudation is recognized by the accused.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The Defendant alleged that there was no intention to commit the act of receiving similar facts in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail by stating in the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment.
Comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances determined by the lower court as properly and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had a relation of explicit, implied, or successive conspiracy with C regarding the entire act of receiving similar goods in this case.
It is reasonable to view it.
The judgment of the court below is alleged.