beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of conviction against the Defendants and the part of compensation order against D, which is an applicant for compensation, is reversed.
Reasons
1. The lower court rejected C’s application for compensation order (2017 early 87), which is an application for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation, and thus, the said application for compensation became final and conclusive.
Therefore, the rejection of the above order for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), Defendant B did not have conspired with Defendant A to deceive the above victims because it was in the position of investment in the fish farm as well as the victim D and J. In addition, the above victims visited several times before determining whether to invest in the fish farm and confirmed the current status of assets and liabilities of the fish farm, and they decided to purchase shares in the fish farm based on their own judgment, and there was no deception nor causation between deception and disposal. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the above victims of fraud was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in light of the circumstances of unfair sentencing, whether to take profits from the crime in the instant case, the agreement with the victim J and the victim D, and the deposit of damages to the victim D, their age and health status, etc.
B. In full view of the Defendants’ relationship, management situation at the time of sale of shares, the Defendants’ deception (the timing of collection of investment funds, the death of long-term fishing, and the size of the liability for fish farms) and other relevant facts, the Defendants conspired as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victims C to the extent of 60 million won.