지불보증금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning of the judgment is as follows. The defendant's assertion that the court emphasizes or adds to the above court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "additional Judgment" as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to the above court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
The second 10 pages of the judgment of the first instance shall read "each description of evidence A 1, 3, 11, 15" as "each description of evidence A 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 through 15, 19, and 19 (including the number of pages)," respectively.
The fourth 12 written statement in the judgment of the court of first instance is "each description of Eul evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 4-1" as "each description of Gap evidence 8, 9, Eul evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 4-1."
The fourth 17th 17th son of the first instance judgment "(Evidence A 4-1)" is "(Evidence A 4-1-1)."
The "each evidence in the preceding three parallels of the first instance judgment" shall be read as "each evidence in the preceding three parallels of the first instance judgment, evidence No. 16-1, 2, A No. 19, and evidence No. 19, respectively."
The five and six pages of the judgment of the first instance are added to “(the money remitted by the plaintiff to a passbook in the name of D or E was used as C’s operating expenses).”
Article 13(1) of the Special Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) provides that “The defendant shall file a complaint against the plaintiff in collusion with D, etc. for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) but the Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High Prosecutors' Office rendered a decision that the plaintiff shall not be prosecuted on November 25, 2016.”
2. The defendant asserts that the additional determination (1) is invalid since D, not F, which was the representative director of the defendant at the time, arbitrarily affixed a letter of payment in this case, but D, which was not F, at the time.
D The Plaintiff does not dispute with the fact that the seal of the Defendant was affixed to the instant letter of payment.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 16-2 and No. 21, F is the defendant at the time.