beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant
A, in the imprisonment of five and half years, and the defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The investigation of this case by Defendant A and B, upon the request of the reduction of BU, began with the investigation of this case into a false fact by entering into the Korea Agricultural Association Corporation (hereinafter “D Farming Association”) and filed a false complaint. The above BU mitigation notified the investors of false or distorted facts that they were guilty from the Defendants, thereby receiving a statement from the witness, and inducing or forcing the witness to make a false statement during the investigation process. This series of investigation procedures are unlawful, and the prosecution of this case is null and void as it goes against the provisions of law.
B. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) Defendant A and B’s assertion that Defendant A and B made against Defendant A was against the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act 336, 2014, 336, and Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act 3810, 2014, 200).
② Defendant A and B, after the establishment of the D Farming Cooperative, recruited its members, and recruited its contribution in the form of investment by the recruited members. This constitutes “where registration or report is made pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes” under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts and Subordinate Statutes, the Defendants’ solicitation of investors does not constitute “the act of receiving similar amounts” prohibited by the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts and Subordinate Statutes.
③ Even if the above solicitation constitutes a similar receiving act, in light of the fact that an attorney-at-law or other legal counsel was established to invite investment, etc., the Defendants’ act constitutes “misunderstanding that one’s act constitutes a crime under the law,” and thus, constitutes “misunderstanding that one’s act constitutes a crime under the law,” and thus, is held liable in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act.
B) Defendant B’s assertion.