logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2015노4725
유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., form of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (i.e., one and half years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of community service order) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Considering the social harm of the crime of fund-raising fraud, which distort the sound economic order of judgment and disturbs the general public’s awareness of labor, which leads to the occurrence of a large number of victims in a short period of time, the crime is very poor, in light of each of the Defendants’ respective roles, who received contributions from the victims and delivered them to G or provided a direct explanation of business to the victims, the degree of their participation is not easy, and Defendant B has the same kind of criminal records subject to the punishment of fine.

However, it cannot be denied that the Defendants did not play a leading role in the overall crime of this case; accordingly, the profits actually acquired by the Defendants appears to be not significant; Defendant A did not have the same criminal power in the case of Defendant A; Defendant A did not have criminal records exceeding the fine; Defendant A did not want to punish the Defendants; Defendant A did not want to recognize and reflect the Defendants’ mistake; the victims who want to obtain high profits in a short period of time; the victims’ excessive desire to commit the crime of this case could not be denied as a major cause that could enable them to commit the crime of this case in an unreasonable and irregular manner; and in full view of all the circumstances surrounding sentencing as conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments, each of the lower judgment’s sentencing against the Defendants is too unfilled, and it is not recognized that the Defendants exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is groundless.

arrow