사기등
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant D and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.
Defendant
D. Imprisonment.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
B misunderstanding of facts is not a Korean total liability that manages and instructs withdrawal management measures, etc., but only he received daily allowances under the direction of EP, a Korean total book, and there is no credibility of the defendant A, C, and M statement. Defendant B received from the defendant under the above-mentioned defendant A is only the Busan Bank account, part of the K K account in the name of LAB, the accounts in the name of LAB, the accounts in the name of LAB, and the accounts in EK, and other accounts are not known to the defendant B. The defendant B sent two cell phoness when receiving the order of withdrawal from EP, and the defendant B sent two cell phoness to the defendant A as it is, and the defendant A received the order of withdrawal from the defendant B without distinguishing the defendant B and the "GA", and the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged by the defendant. In light of the above facts, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the defendant B.
The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, five million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
A, C, and D (Multiple Undue Practices): Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines for 5,00,000,000 won for defendant C; imprisonment for three years and a fine for 5,00,000 won for defendant C; imprisonment for three years and a fine for 5,00,000 won for defendant D; imprisonment for one year and 8 months); and imprisonment for two years and 8 months for defendant D is too unreasonable.
Ex officio determination (Defendant D) will be examined ex officio prior to the determination of Defendant D’s grounds for appeal.
This Court decided to consolidate the appeal cases of the first instance judgment against Defendant D with the second instance judgment, and on the other hand, each of the offenses committed in the judgment below which was found guilty is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the concurrent offense is aggravated by Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.