2015Do1747 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

[Name of Partial Crime: Specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc.

【Violation of Korean Law (Misappropriation)】

(d) Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney F, D, HF, HG

Law Firm HH

Attorney HI, and HJ

Seoul High Court Decision 2014531 Decided January 15, 2015

February 18, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

The lower court found all of the facts charged in the instant case guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and recognized the amount obtained by the Defendant as all the money that the Defendant received as the purchase cost of goods from the victims. In light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Violation of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act (amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) with respect to N Co., Ltd.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on multi-level marketing business entities as prescribed by the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act related to the R Co., Ltd.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. The portion of unfair sentencing

Examining the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, as well as various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, there is no substantial reason to recognize that the amount of the lower court’s punishment is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548

Justices Kim Jong-il