beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.10 2016노5172

사기등

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, Defendant A concluded a share transfer contract after explaining all of the financial situation of KK at the time of selling 52,500 shares owned by the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) to one of the H’s operators at the time of the sale of 52,500 shares to the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) on or around February 2, 2012, Defendant A entered into a share transfer contract. Thus, even though Defendant A did not deceiving the victim, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of eight months and three million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the financial status of K at the time of the fraud part concerning Defendant A’s victim G, the details of the subcontract agreement for aggregate extraction works with AB, and the circumstances in which the victim paid additional construction costs, Defendant A could sufficiently be recognized by deceiving the victim, but the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges.

B) Although Defendant A failed to perform his duty to preserve the Defendant A’s mining right not to be revoked, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (as above, Defendant A, Defendant B, and C: fine of one million won for each of the above types) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined on the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.