사기등
1. All the judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months for each crime set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) At the time of mistake of facts (limited to the judgment of the second instance), the Defendant was authorized to endorsement of the Promissory Notes in this case, not arbitrarily affixed the seal of AJ as an internal director of AH.
In addition, since it is not discounted with forged bills, fraud can not be established.
(2) Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (limited to the judgment of the court of first instance) sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the sentence of the court of first instance: 10 months) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the representative director AH left the seal and passbook of AH for the efficiency of field management of subcontracted enterprises, and the fact that AH representative director did not permit the endorsement in the name of AH representative director (Evidence No. 55-57) and ② the defendant arbitrarily endorsed the Promissory Notes in the name of AH representative director AHJ and received KRW 12 million in the name of bill discount from AL by allowing AH representative director to exercise the Promissory Notes, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.
B. (1) As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant of the first instance judgment is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, such as the fact that there was a history of having been punished several times due to the crime of fraud, and that the victim M wanting punishment against the Defendant.
However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against the mistake, and the instant crime was committed on September 25, 2010, with the relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive, and Article 39 of the Criminal Act.