logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.21 2016노514
사기등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of imprisonment, one year and eight months of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unfford.

Defendant

A Defendant A was engaged in the management of L’s false horses to invest KRW 2 billion in the N Business (hereinafter “instant business”) and only engaged in the mining and self-production supply of the said mine, and did not participate in the solicitation of investors.

Therefore, even though Defendant A did not commit the instant fraud in collusion with L, Defendant B, etc., the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

B The above sentence that the court below committed against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C. Defendant C is only one of the victims who believe that the instant project is true and invested, and did not commit the instant fraud in collusion with L, Defendant A, B, etc., but the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

The above-mentioned sentence that the court below committed against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

Defendant A also argued to the same effect as the assertion of mistake of facts as that of the above facts, and the court below rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement of its decision.

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① Defendant A, Defendant C, etc., to the investors in the “P” store located in Gwangju or Daegu.

arrow