특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
[Defendant A] The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed.
[Defendant B] The part of the lower judgment on perjury is not guilty.
1. The proceedings of prosecution and a summary of the judgment below
A. On September 2, 2016, the prosecutor charged Defendant A with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on September 2, 2016. (2) Defendant B appeared and testified as a witness on the third trial date of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on December 8, 2016.
3) On May 2, 2017, the prosecutor changed the indictment against Defendant A to change the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to the exchange of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).
(5) On November 2018, 2018, the prosecutor charged Defendant A with violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud. On March 14, 2019, the prosecutor modified the indictment to delete the fraudulent part among the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud. (2) The summary of the lower judgment 1) acquitted Defendant A with all of the charges of this case.
2) Of the instant facts charged against Defendant B, the judgment of innocence was rendered on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of breach of trust) and the judgment of innocence and partial guilty of perjury.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (Defendant B) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the guilty part among the charges of perjury) purport that the testimony made by Defendant B could not be said to have been performed as the chairperson of the entire clan. Thus, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles