beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants entered into an investment agreement with the victims by specifying not only the “J” but also the “K” as the subject of investment, and the “J” did not have a good prospect to recover revenues and used the investment funds in the parcelling-out project. Therefore, there was no intent to deceive victims to acquire the investment funds by deceiving them.
B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendants on the unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment; 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the original judgment and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendants can fully recognize the fact that the victims were deceiving the victims as if they were to use in the sale business of "K" even if they were to use in the sale business of "K" and the criminal intent of defraudation of investment money. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.
① On April 7, 2014, the victims were aware of the Defendants’ commitment to establish registration on one commercial loan of the J “J” as a security for investment funds after hearing the explanation on the N and M’s sales business at the coffee shop located in the first floor of the J “J” and having the Defendants believe that they will make an investment.
② The investment agreement entered into by the Defendants with the victims on April 13, 2012 includes a sale business of “K”, which is implemented in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, as well as the sale business of “J” for investment. However, prior to the conclusion of the said investment agreement, the Defendants and the victims merely have discussed the investment in the sale business of “J” and there was no discussion about the sale business of “K”. There was no detailed explanation about the sale business of “K” to the victims or the provision of materials.
(3) Victims.