beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendant by misunderstanding the legal doctrine (2016 order 3001 case), the Defendant was punished as a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts in the case of Goyang-Jan District Court 2015 order 651, 1541 (Consolidation), and 1884 (Consolidation). The criminal facts of the instant case overlap with the date and time of this part of the facts charged, and are in the relation of a single comprehensive crime by having the same place as the place of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Investment Funds from U among the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s explanation and method of investment; (b) the Defendant’s specific and consistent statement of U (V prior to the name of each person); and (c) account transaction details corresponding to the aforementioned statement; and (d) the account transaction details corresponding to the relevant statement.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.
In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Investment Money from U among the facts charged against the defendant (part of the 2015 High Order 3144 of the case) to change the content of the investment money after July 11, 201 of the original facts charged (the deletion of the content of the investment money after July 11, 201 of the original facts charged) as shown in the attached table. This court permitted this to change the subject of the judgment of this court.
However, this part is the same.