특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, B, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and B1 did not confirm at all the specific contents of the solicitation that the Defendants made to D with mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the receipt of property in breach of trust). Moreover, the time when the Defendants delivered money to D was the time when the pertinent business was completed and the progress of the business was uncertain. In light of these circumstances, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have made an illegal solicitation against the social rules. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of giving property in breach of trust by deeming that the Defendants made an implied solicitation to D on the sole basis of indirect circumstances and found the Defendants guilty of giving property in breach of trust. 2) The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendants in unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the point of receiving property in breach of trust) did not receive an illegal solicitation from A and B. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in determining the guilty of receiving property in breach of trust. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant E’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A, B, and D (related to giving rise to breach of trust and taking advantage of property in breach of trust)
A. The lower court determined that Defendant A, B, and D had the same assertion as the purport of the appeal in this part that there was no illegal solicitation or no illegal acceptance at the lower court. 2) First, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence. AX rejected the conclusion of a land trust agreement on the first L sale business on the grounds that there was a problem such as replacement of construction works and false seller, etc. around February 2, 2017, and Defendant A and B were the same.