1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 was the representative director of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), but the said company was an employee of the victim AO investment association (hereinafter “the victim investment association”) in the course of receiving investment from the said company, and the said company merely by deceiving E, who is an employee of the said company, to take part in the crime of fraud, did not take part in the crime of fraud in collusion with E.

Nevertheless, the court below (Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap 247) is the case.

The judgment of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “the first instance court”) and the said judgment of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment of the first instance court”), and the judgment of the said case (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment of the second instance”) in collusion with E by the Defendant who acquired the investment money from the victim investment association in collusion with E.

The judgment of the court below of first instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first and second first instances of sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A, a public prosecutor (Defendant AA) employee of K, also recognized that Defendant A, a co-defendant, provided false sales data, etc. to the victim investment association and acquired the investment funds by fraud, at least dolusently, Defendant A, a public prosecutor (Defendant AA) conspired to commit the crime of defraudation of investment funds and participated therein.

Nevertheless, the first instance court determined that Defendant A cannot be recognized as acquiring investments from the victim investment association in collusion with Defendant E and joint Defendant A. The first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below of the second instance on the above defendant's grounds for appeal by authority (as to the defendant A), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A, are examined ex officio.