logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.22 2017노2679
유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A A A Fines of 15,00,000 won, Defendant B of the case shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, and Defendant C of the case.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal [the court below found Defendant A to be guilty and sentenced to a fine of the following amount: Defendant A 40,00,000 won; Defendant B 15,00,000 won; Defendant C 2,00,000 won; Defendant D 40,000 won; Defendant E-6,000,000 won; Defendant F 10,000,000 won; Defendant G7,00,000 won; Defendant H 40,000,000,000 won; Defendant I 30,000,000,000 won; Defendant K30,000,000,000 won; Defendant L15,000,000,000 won; Defendant L15,000,000 won; Defendant M&M; Defendant F., 100,000,000 investment funds; and thus, constitutes a violation of the laws and regulations.

In addition, the sentence determined by the court of the court of the original instance is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C and J is not a similar recipient company but a similar recipient, and there is no open bid, so the decision of the court below is a mistake of fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the sentence determined by the court of the court of the original instance is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B, D, E, K, and L court of the original instance are too unfair because the punishment is too unfair.

Defendant

H S was not a similar recipient company but a similar recipient, and there was no business. The decision of the court below is erroneous that there was a mistake of fact, and it included the maintenance cost and the investment amount of his relative in the amount of similar receipt, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the sentence determined by the court of the court of the original instance is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion that the amount invested in the name of the Defendants and the amount invested by the Defendants in the name of relatives should be excluded from the amount received similarly. The lower court did not require damage therefrom, but raised funds.

arrow