logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노973
유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant recommended the victim G and I to make an investment in the secured non-performing loan exchange project (hereinafter “instant project”), which the Defendant is the Defendant’s prior owner, verbally without holding an investment explanation meeting or preparing and distributing the investment prospectus, etc. ② The Defendant, other than the victims, has not been recommended to make an investment, and the Defendant was justifiable to notify the victims of the investment in the instant project. Rather, the Defendant did not give any opportunity to participate in the instant project if he wishes to do so. Accordingly, the Defendant’s investment recommendation to the victims does not constitute “the act of receiving funds without permission” as provided in Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Loans, which requires “the act of raising funds from many unspecified persons.” However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant charges by misapprehending the legal principles on “the act of receiving funds without permission” or by misapprehending the legal principles on “the act of receiving funds without permission.”

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are as follows: (a) the Defendant solicited the victim G and I to invest in the instant project; (b) did not have any conditions or restrictions, such as setting the investor’s qualifications or the upper limit of investment funds; (c) the Defendant recommended the victims of the same team who directly work for the trustee company of the savings bank lending business; and (d) the victims who caused the occurrence of a disaster to contribute money to make investments.

arrow