(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2019노641

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2019노641

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and is unreasonable in view of the following: (a) the Defendant made a tour in the Republic of Korea and takes charge of the key role of deceiving victims by holding an explanatory meeting for investment in the instant project; (b) the principal offender connected with the principal offender and contributing essentially to inducing the lower head of the center; (c) the Defendant in charge of deception and acquired a lot of profits while clearly aware of the structure of the crime; and (d) the history of punishment for the

2. The fact that the defendant was involved in the crime of this case from the beginning of the crime of this case, the structure of the crime of this case and the deception, while recognizing the investment explanation, and the fact that the defendant's participation causes enormous damages to many victims in the crime of this case, and that there was the history of punishment for the same crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant was assigned one business code under one’s own name, the Defendant did not recruit subordinate investors, had other accomplices such as AH and G utilize the above code, and was paid only part of the allowances paid for the above code.

In light of this, the defendant mainly enjoyed the benefit of the crime of this case.

As it is difficult to see that the principal offender led the crime for the purpose of or benefit from the crime, the degree or nature of the participation is minor compared to E, F, G, etc.

In addition, the defendant's business code No. 1 was created by F, and the defendant did not have invested in the business of this case by himself, and the defendant started to provide an explanation of investment upon the request of F and G after G did not engage in any special activity even after he received the business code No. 1.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the defendant actively and actively participated in the crime.

Furthermore, the defendant actually acquired.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.03.29 2017고단2250

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.04.22 2016고단280

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.06.30 2016고단640

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.02 2017고단5438

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.30 2017고단7600