beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment of the court below (the community service order of 80 hours for each of the defendants, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2, D, and 2): and
2. The fact that the amount equivalent to the investment amount of Defendant A, B, and E in the instant case was already repaid as an allowance to investors as well as agreed upon by some investors; Defendant A and B did not directly gain profit from the act of receiving investment money in the instant case while managing the investment amount; Defendant A was the primary offender and Defendant E did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc.; social harm, such as: (a) the act of receiving money without permission or the act of receiving money through a multi-level sales organization, which is favorable to the Defendants, may cause confusion in financial transaction order; (b) the act of receiving money without permission or the act of receiving money through a multi-level sales organization, which is so large that there is a need for severe punishment; (c) the amount of money received due to the instant crime reaches KRW 1.7 billion; and (d) the amount of money received without permission due to the instant crime reaches an unfavorable amount of 1.7 billion won for the victims; and (e) the fact that Defendant B had the same kind of punishment force to the above Defendants; and (e.g.
3. Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant D’s ex officio, prior to the determination of Defendant D’s grounds for appeal, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that “Defendant D was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud in the Busan District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch on April 17, 2013, and the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2013,” which added all the facts charged in the instant case to the facts charged by the Prosecutor.” This is subject to the judgment by this Court.