beta
Text
All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the law firm head.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties 1) Defendant V is the actual representative of AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AA”), which is a subsidiary of Defendant AA, and Defendant X is the head of the marketing headquarters, Defendant X is the representative of AA, and Defendant Z is the representative of AB, an individual company managing the investment funds of AA.
2) The Plaintiffs are investors in AA.
B. The Defendants were prosecuted for violation of the Act on the AA’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s Act on the A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s inducement of investment, violation of the Act on the A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s Act, and violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. On April 4, 2016, the court found the Defendants guilty of each of the above criminal facts (Provided, That the Defendants, other than Defendant V, did not recognize habitualness of fraud), and sentenced Defendant V to imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years, 7 years, Defendant X, and W, Y, and Z for four years, and the Defendants jointly filed a compensation order [the Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da974, 950, 200,000]
On September 22, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the same conclusion as the first instance court with respect to major criminal facts, but unlike the judgment on some of the contents, the appellate court rendered a judgment on the charge of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendants (from April 22, 2015 to August 24, 2015) in part during the period of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendants, unlike the first instance court, acquitted the Defendants of the part of the receipt of similar facts, and recognized not only Defendant V but also the rest of the Defendants as habitually related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and also Defendant W’s victim.