The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized No. 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, although the Defendant did not proceed as planned and did not incur a certain loss to the victims who received an investment, the Defendant merely attempted to acquire the investment money from the victims (a fraud) and attempted to receive the investment money to conduct a pention business, and there was no agreement from the victims to pay the principal or money in excess of the principal or the amount of the investment (a similar receipt act) as a business of importing the investment money. (b) The Defendant did not have any doubt of crime since the Defendant, at the time of arrest on February 9, 2017, intended to enter into a sales contract for the pention at the time of the arrest. As such, there was no doubt of crime because the Defendant was present at the police station in Msan-dong, Busan, and was arrested even in the case where there was no fear of voluntary escape, destruction of evidence, and second offense. This constitutes an illegal arrest, and thus, it cannot be deemed as evidence of illegality, and all statements, etc. at the time of arrest and detention.

(c)

Sentencing Sentencing

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The act of receiving similar goods prohibited by Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts does not include deception itself, and the crime of violating the above Act and the crime of fraud are separate crimes different from each other. Since the form of each other's act and the protection of legal interests are different, the two crimes should be deemed as substantive concurrent relations, not commercial concurrent relations.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Acts Receiving Similar to each of the defendant's fraud is in a mutually competitive relationship.

In light of the legal principles on the evaluation of the number of crimes, there is an error of law in the application of the law, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's remaining grounds for appeal, excluding unfair arguments, still exists.