beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.28 2019노1131

사기등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The court below's scope of judgment in this Court is that the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act among the facts charged in this case were dismissed, and each of the remaining facts charged was convicted, and since only the defendant appealed on the conviction part, the part of the judgment below's dismissal becomes final and conclusive, only the part of the judgment below's judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was unable to pay the price of delivered goods to the victims because of a temporary excess of debt while operating the enterprise of mistake of facts, and the defendant intentionally made the state of excess of debt.

There is no fact of deceiving victims due to the fixed term of the payment of the price of goods.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The eight-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair.

3. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the case was examined ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, and the public prosecutor set the date and amount of the crime as indicated in the list of crimes in the annexed list, which changes the facts charged as follows

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain, as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

4. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the revised facts charged “2018 Highest 492” was the Defendant who actually runs the gold manufacturing business from February 2, 2013 to June 2017.