beta
Text
[Defendant A] The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (De facto mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles) cannot be deemed to have had the intent of deception or fraud in light of the fact that Defendant A had been normally promoted the rare soil experience project at the time of soliciting investment funds from the victims, and that most of the investment funds have been repaid later.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant B (hereinafter “E”)
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable, on the ground that it is only the representative director under the name of the person A and the instant fraud, etc.
C. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of facts is only a simple investor, and Defendant C did not conspired to commit the instant fraud. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspended execution in June 1 and six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
1) In relation to the mistake of facts (not guilty and acquittal of reasons in the original judgment) (1) as to the Defendants’ victim L, 50,050 won, 50,000 won or other remittances deposited in the S Bank account in actual 50,50,000 won and deposited in the S Bank account, and in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Crimes Table 2 Nos. 148, 149 (the remittance of May 27, 2016, and the acquittal of reasons in the original judgment), the victim L stated in the court of the original judgment that “the amount of 50,050,000 won or the other remittances deposited into the S Bank account on May 27, 2016, and the actual 1,050,000 won was deposited in the S Bank account, and that there is a difference between this part of the funds received as the representative director and the account opened on the account of the Defendant’s account, and that there is sufficient difference between this part of the Defendant E’s account.