beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of six years.
Defendant
A, C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The Defendant, who misleads the victim as to the future nature of the shares, recommended the victim W to purchase shares such as Q, etc. normally while publicizing the future nature of the shares, and would have the victim W’s children employed.
The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
D1) In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of Q Q’s technical records, etc. are future.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
(d)
1) In light of the circumstances where Defendants A, B, and C received abnormal allowances and sold shares, and the sales structure, equipment, etc. of Q at the time, the Defendants recognized that they would have a high possibility of false explanation against investors, but continued to attract investments by notifying the fact that they had not been verified for their own interests, such as sales allowances, and as such, the Defendants could be seen as having used deceptive schemes or deceiving investors, even if dolusive intent is recognized as to the use of deceptive schemes or deceiving investors, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.