beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.01 2016노649 (1)

사기등

Text

We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are present at a briefing session held by O and at the head office E (E; hereinafter “E”) to hear explanations on profitability, investment prospects, etc. and have the ability to repay the investment deposit and to pay dividends to E.

The defendant believed that he was able to make a large investment.

In addition, the Defendant did not know at all about the actual contents of E’s business, the current status of operation, and the method of fund management, and there was no consultation with F and investors recruitment or instruction from them to attract investors.

Therefore, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

public offering, such as F, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The first deliberation penalty (one year and nine months of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

(b) the first deliberation type of the inspection is too unhued and unjust;

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the first instance court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant was sufficiently doubtful as to whether the investor’s investment amount was properly delivered to E head office, and whether the investment amount was actually used in the FX M transaction.

On the other hand, even if the defendant receives investment money from investors, he can be found to have accepted the fact that it is not possible to reduce the dividend and allowances according to the promise that is made without normal investment, but has accepted it and recommended the victims to make an investment. Therefore, the defendant can be fully recognized that there was a criminal intent to acquire it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) A dividend of 3 to 8% per month for investment shall be paid, and where investors attract new investors, 10% of the amount of new investors' investment shall be paid as recommended allowances, and such new investors shall be confined.