logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노3295
유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) that the Defendant did not know about the operation and management of the FBJ (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant companies”)’s investment funds, the profit structure and internal circumstances, all the investment funds invested by each of the instant companies are managed by M, L, N, etc. as an executive officer of F, and the Defendant was not an employee of each of the instant companies, and the circumstances that the lower court considered as the grounds for the judgment of innocence are irrelevant to the establishment or intentional recognition of the act of receiving similar facts.

The Defendant, as the head of the business team, recruited investors for investment goods sold by each of the instant companies, received certain fees in return, and did not have been aware that each of the instant companies was aware of the fact that it did not obtain authorization for similar receipt business.

may be seen.

Therefore, although the defendant's act constitutes a similar receiving act and dolusent intention of the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The defendant's act of soliciting investment money by the defendant without having agreed to guarantee principal does not constitute a similar receiving act prohibited by the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act.

argument is asserted.

Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant agreed to pay the full amount of investment or an amount exceeding it in the future and recruited investors.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts can be acknowledged:

◎ K는 F의 임원인 M, N, L으로부터 이 사건 각 회사의 사업 설명을 듣고 관련 자료를 받아 이를 이용하여 피고인을 비롯한 9명의 영업팀장들에게 ‘F 는 H에 200억 원을 투자하였는데 H에서 고수익이 창출되고 있다.

P A. Investment was made in the Sweve beauty business.

F. ..

arrow