beta
Text
The judgment below
The conviction except the compensation order shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On June 14, 2017, Defendant A’s defense attorney at Defendant A’s defense that the part of the credit card sales amount of Defendant A, “D,” which is a “D,” among the part of the credit card sales amount in the crime list (3) in Section 2, should be partially commercialized and included in the part of the separate crime list (1). However, Defendant A’s defense attorney at Defendant A’s defense, as of July 28, 2017, excluded the duplicate calculated from the amount of fraud. However, Defendant A’s defense was withdrawn by mistake as to the scope of the amount of defraudation with his/her written opinion.
In consideration of the following circumstances, the conviction part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
A) Defendant A did not engage in a business of receiving similar money in collusion with Defendant B and C or by deceiving investors to receive investment money.
All of the above crimes were committed under the direction of Defendant B, who is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and Defendant A did not intervene in the management method of Defendant B.
B) In particular, from October 8, 2015, Defendant A instructed Defendant B to suspend the business of Defendant D. Since there was no fact that Defendant A received sales money from D to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), the subsequent transaction is the sole crime of Defendant B.
2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A with respect to the portion of the offense committed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court accepted the Defendant A’s assertion that the sales statement of less than KRW 2,00,00,000, which was composed of less than 2,000,000 of the pre-paid credit card settlement statement (3) of the crime sight table, was a pure sales of K, which is unrelated to the act of receiving the same type or fraud (the trial record No. 335, 336 of the trial record) and, in the event of fraud, acquitted some of the facts and the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts (hereinafter “the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts”), acquitted each of the reasons.
However, taking into account the following circumstances: