beta
Text
Defendant
The appeal by L, F, P, Q and R and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's grounds for appeal, misunderstanding the facts that the defendant's appeal, who is the defendant's defendant's appellate brief as to the reasons for appeal by the court below, was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months in prison, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of misunderstanding of two years and 6 months in prison, 3 years in probation, 2 years in prison, 240 hours in prison, 1 year and 8 months in prison, 3 years in probation, 200 hours in prison, 1 year and 3 years in probation, 1 year in prison, 3 years in probation, 200 hours in prison, 1 year in prison, 2 years in prison, 2 years in prison, 2 years in prison, 2 years in prison, 2 years in community service, 240 hours in prison, 2 years in prison, 200 hours in prison, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to all the defendants (the grounds for appeal).
A. In other words, the Defendants agreed to pay allowances in excess of the principal amount or set the time limit for the payment of allowances for three months. In other words, the Defendants did not agree to pay allowances in excess of the principal amount or set the time limit for the payment of allowances for three months.
In addition, it was notified that it is impossible to pay dividends if the surplus is reduced due to low utilization performance of members.
Therefore, there was no deception.
② Gold (Frand, gold, etc.) is personally sold by Defendant F, and the Mutual Association is not related to the affairs of the Mutual Association since it simply received fees before and after 10%.
(2) Among the list of alleged crimes committed by Defendant L, the part which was not performed at the time when Defendant L was involved in the partnership business is included, and there is a difference between the victim and the amount of damage.
(3) Defendant F, P, Q, and R’s assertion (1) The so-called marketing franchise is designed solely by Defendant L, and Defendant F, etc. did not have any participation therein.
(2) The amount of 50,00 won invested by a cooperative is the minimum cost to qualify as a cooperative member, and is irrelevant to fraud.
(b).