beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A, B, and D among them shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six years, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to (i) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Act relating to “U” among the facts charged in the instant case by Defendant B, the Defendant only lent the name of the representative to Defendant A, and did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A.
B. As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant believed the Defendant’s explanation to the extent that he/she had made an investment, and did not know that the content of the instant business was false.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Shebly, Defendant D merely believed the horses of Defendant A and B and introduced the victims, and there was a criminal intent to commit a crime of fraud by fraud or intentional act of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts.
Although it cannot be said, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence that the court below sentenced (the Defendants: 7 years of imprisonment; 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment; 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment; 3 months of imprisonment; 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine related to “U”, Defendant B operated a business similar to the instant release on bail around 2012, prior to the instant crime, around 2012.
The experience of investment in AA has been experienced, with the assistance of AA in 2013, the business operator was registered in his/her own name with the office of "U", and then the business was operated with the defendant A who was affiliated with it.