A. In so doing, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Defendant A) even though Defendant A merely mediated the victim’s financing of funds, and did not participate in the Defendant B’s fraudulent conduct.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was not able to raise funds by the Defendant B, and recognized that the Defendant participated in the Defendant B’s crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In relation to the loan of KRW 200 million from the victim, the Defendant prepared an investment contract with the Defendant to make the Defendant’s investment in F Co., Ltd. as the investment deposit in relation to the loan of KRW 20 million, which was borrowed from the victim, and the Defendant also paid golf costs used by the victim.

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the defendant merely mediated the contract between the victim and the above defendant B.

The defendant paid money without confirming whether the defendant B was a way to raise funds.

In addition, even if the victim demanded the return of the amount paid as the interest, he did not make efforts to return the amount of damage, such as taking a specific method of return, even if the victim demanded the return of the amount paid as the interest.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015