beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of six years and ten months.
Seized evidence 2 and 3 shall be confiscated, respectively.
(e).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of legal principles or erroneous determination of facts, and other Defendant’s defense counsel added the assertion that ① part of the facts charged against the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act conflicts with res judicata effect after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal, and ② the allegation that the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is established only within the extent of the amount actually used to sell derivatives related to stocks out of investment funds.
(2) The following is related to the judgment under Article 2-2 (b) of the following. (2) The main text cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal, and even ex officio, as long as the defendant et al. conspired to raise investment funds and raise funds and actually traded derivatives related to the stocks, so long as the defendant et al. was engaged in collective investment business with regard to the total amount of investment funds and actually traded derivatives, the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is established. Thus, the above argument is not acceptable, as alleged by the counsel, since the above crime is not established only within the scope of the amount used in itself for the purchase price of derivatives related to the stocks out of the investment funds. Accordingly, since the victim DI and DJ are the mother of the defendant, each fraud part against DI (relative relative relative relative) related to DI is exempt from punishment for the fraud part against DI pursuant to Articles 354 and 328 (1) of the Criminal Act.
Since the DJ is the mother of the defendant, it is possible to institute a public prosecution only when the complaint is filed pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act. Since there is no complaint, the prosecution against the DJ should be dismissed.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced punishment including the above facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to relative precedent.