beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) did not receive money under the pertinent name by speaking to the victim with the “act of crime” as stated in the instant facts charged at the time of the Defendant’s statement (in particular, with respect to each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 1, 3, 11, and 12]. Even if the Defendant made such remarks, it received money from the victim by making such remarks.
Even if the victim is merely an investor who promised to invest a large amount of money, and how to use the investment money belongs to the discretion of the defendant as the person in charge of the business, and as long as there was an intent or ability to make a normal settlement of the investment money of the victim ex post, it cannot be readily concluded that the crime of fraud is established under the Criminal Act solely on the ground that some money was used for other purposes (in particular, as to each crime described in the attached Table No. 2, No. 4 through 8, 9, 10, and 13 of the judgment of the court below). Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of all the charges of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of fraud under the Criminal Act or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment
B. The prosecutor’s sentence (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (a two-year imprisonment with prison labor, a three-year probation, and a two hundred-hour community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same as the above grounds for appeal. The lower court divided the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following circumstances, namely, ① According to the implementation letter of this case (Evidence 31 page), the victim shall make an investment in the instant business, and the amount of the investment shall be limited to KRW 1.9 billion, and the amount of the investment shall also be limited to KRW 1.9 billion upon the Defendant’s request, not to make an unconditional