특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s defense counsel of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles asserts that all facts during the third trial of the party trial, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles are asserted, and that the assertion of mistake of facts is included in the assertion of unfair sentencing. However, even if based on the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the said counsel, based on a different concept, mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing are not stated to the effect that the sentencing of the court below is unfair, and on the date of the first trial of the party trial, the defense counsel’s above assertion
Furthermore, under the premise that Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted as seen below, even if ex officio with respect to the sentencing of Defendant A, the amount of damage reaches KRW 500 million and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the criminal law, as well as in the case where there is no change of circumstances such as agreement with the victims or recovery of damage in the court below, the sentence against Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
1) The Defendants are not only the names of the victims of the shipbuilding industry, but also the Defendants’ project financing (hereinafter “PF”).
(ii) KRW 500 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant KRW 500 million”) as the corporate operation funds, including the necessary activity expenses, to obtain the loans;
The defendants received the victims, and the defendants omitted the indication of "Korean corporation" (hereinafter referred to as "stock company") within three days on the face of 50 million won.
There was no deception by the Defendants to accept the payment guarantee letter, and even if the Defendants were to commit such deception, there was no causal relationship between the deception and the victims’ disposal.
Nevertheless, this case.