beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion (including the part not guilty in the reason) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.
Reasons
1. As to the charge of fraud and the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (the Door-to-Door Sales Act), the court below found the charge of fraud and the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act as part of the charges in this case, and found the charge not guilty in the order as to each of the primary charges against each of the victims listed in the annexed crime list Nos. 3 in the judgment of the court below, and each of the ancillary charges of aiding and abetting fraud. The court below acquitted each of the ancillary charges as to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is the primary charge against each investor listed in the annexed crime Nos. 3 in the judgment of the court below, and as to aiding and abetting the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is the ancillary charge of each investor listed in the annexed crime List Nos. 3 in the judgment of the court below, and acquitted each of the aforementioned charges on the ground that
The judgment below
Among the guilty parts and the part not guilty as to aiding and abetting the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement), the prosecutor appealeded against the prosecutor, but the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal all of the above fraud and aiding and abetting the fraud. Therefore, the part not guilty as to each of the above fraud and aiding and abetting the fraud in the judgment below is already separately determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The prosecutor of the gist of the grounds of appeal stated the grounds of appeal as the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, but the prosecutor withdraws the grounds of appeal on the date of the first instance trial. Thus, the prosecutor does not
Although mining devices and their parts purchased under the name of the victim D were stored in BU warehouses, BU was merely in charge of supplying parts themselves or supplying extraction devices that have been assembled according to the direction of the defendant, who is a director of D, and therefore, the defendant's property is the victim's property.