beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B and prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) are investors only, and there was no intent to acquire the investment money from the victim F in collusion with the above Defendant A, and there was no deception by the victim. 2) The punishment of the lower court (a fine of KRW 20 million) is too heavy or unreasonable.
B. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant conspiredd with the Defendant A, etc. to acquire the investment money from the victim and sentenced the Defendant guilty.
In addition, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
Of the amount remitted by the victim, the amount shall be KRW 13 million only if it is confirmed that the defendant was personally used. If the defendant was a simple investor, it is not likely that he/she was involved in the act of defraudation by the above defendant A.
B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented and direct principle as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and sentencing recorded in the records of the instant case.