beta
Text
The judgment below
Each part of the conviction against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A, Defendant B, who was sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) Defendant A obtained a total of KRW 386,657,00 from the victims of the “Swit (Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion”)” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and acquired it by deception, and the Defendants received the above money as investment money and received it as a business of receiving similar money without obtaining authorization or permission.
2) The lower court’s punishment (i.e., Defendant A: four years of imprisonment; (ii) Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
B. Defendant A1) The amount of money for Victim AO, No. 149, 150, once a year again in attached Table 1 of the List of Crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below, is not the investment funds of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”). Thus, the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receipt of Crimes is not established.
2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Before making an ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal above, the Prosecutor was in the trial of the case, and the part of Articles 7 through 11 of the Criminal facts constituting “2. Defendants and D’ Joint Crimes - Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Crimes -” was delivered a total of KRW 7,774,10,000 from 114 victims a total of KRW 312 times in the following manner: Defendant B received an investment amount of KRW 9,416,510,000 from total of KRW 167 in the following manner, as in the attached Table 2 of the Crimes List 2 from around that time until March 29, 2017.
“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment” was filed, and since this Court permitted it, the conviction against the Defendants was no longer maintained in the judgment of the court below.
In accordance with the amendment of the bill of amendment, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake about the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendants is greater.