beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence (7 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B, 3 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
B. Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A, while carrying out activities by futures investment experts, had the victims receive money exceeding KRW 2.2 billion from nine victims by deceiving the victims while guaranteeing high-profit profits in a short period.
The victims most of the victims are physical and mental damages suffered by victims and their families, such as the victims' loss of the base of life in which life changes and the failure of families by deceiving the victims of money that have been developed difficult to be developed by ordinary people such as the state, the source of the company, and the store merchants.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take any particular measure for the recovery of the victims’ damage, and there seems to be little possibility that the damage will be recovered in the future.
In particular, there is a high possibility of criticism in that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in a planned and repeated manner while living in a state designated by an investigative agency for the same kind of crime.
Meanwhile, prior to the instant crime, there is no other punishment except that the Defendant has been punished twice by a fine due to the violation of the Medical Service Act, etc., and even though the Defendant paid part of the investment money to some victims in the process of acquiring the investment money by means of return prohibition, there is also circumstances such as: (a) whether the Defendant actually operates the investment money in a desire for a short time; (b) whether the victims are actually operating the investment money in a proper manner; and (c) whether there is a profit to the extent that the Defendant would have been able to pay the profits promised to the Defendant’s speech; and (b) whether the Defendant paid the amount of the investment money to the Defendant, which would have caused the expansion of victims’ damage.
3.2