Defendant

All appeals filed by the Prosecutor B and C against the Defendant B and C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B(1) did not have worked at the office as an employee of MBB Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant case.

Defendant

B is an investor of each of the above companies and is only the victim of the defendant A's fraud.

Defendant

B merely received recommendation allowances from Defendant A for two investors, and did not know at all about the income, fund management, and dividend of each of the above companies.

In other words, the part in which Defendant B’s investment is induced is the victim’s Z and AH part, and the victim’s W part is the victim’s investment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The misunderstanding of the facts is an investor of each of the above companies, and only the victim caused by Defendant A’s fraud.

Defendant

C even though the above company was called the "head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Center" of each of the above companies, it was not an employee who has a position such as the "head of general headquarters" or "president", and the name of the "head of the Center" was included in the circumstance that the amount of investment by Defendant C was a large amount.

Defendant

C did not know at all about the revenue, financial management, and dividend of each of the above companies, and did not provide the victims with an explanation of investment.

Defendant

C The inducing investment is limited to the part of the victim AI, not the defendant C has given an explanation about direct investment to the victim AI.

Defendant

C’s statement of H, W, X, N, Y, etc. to the effect that Defendant A conspired with Defendant A is not well known or believed as a statement by a person with bad faith against Defendant C.

2) In the misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant C has already been punished for fraud against the victim AI [the case of Goyang branch court 2015 Goyang branch court 2015 Goyang branch court 615, 1541 (Joint), 1884 (Joint)]. Thus, Defendant C is guilty of the facts charged against Defendant C.