특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant V and B, and the guilty part on Defendant A, and the judgment of the court of second instance.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The prosecutor appealed the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the non-guilty (Article 607, 901, 1501, 802) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 80 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (Article 8 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 802 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Act) by the registration of transfer of ownership of Defendant A (Article 2014, 202, 200) and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the non-guilty (Article 802 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Act) (Article 8 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment
② On July 11, 2016 at the 9th trial date of the trial, the prosecutor: (i) rendered not guilty on Defendant V on the ground of the lower judgment’s reasoning; (ii) the charge of occupational breach of trust (No. 716, 814, and 913) attached to the 1st trial resolution of the first instance court (No. 716, 814, and 913); (iii) the charge of occupational breach of trust (No. 81, 4, and 6 second trial of the attached Table No. 2014, 2014, 2014, and 1) the charge of violation of the specific economic law (ab) at the 607, 901, 1501); and (iv) the charge of embezzlement of the attached Table No. 2013, 2013 and 318 (No. 18, 17).
A. Defendants 1) In the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant V’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the facts charged as to the guilty portion against Defendant V are found not guilty on the following grounds, but the judgment of the court of first instance which determined otherwise, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(1) As to the attempted breach of trust on the part of 2013 high Gohap 80 as stated in the judgment of the first instance court (A) Defendant V, on January 23, 2006 or February 9, 2006, was finally sold by 14 households of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “AB”), and thereafter, the sales contract was newly concluded only by dividing the second floor of the AB of March 3, 2006 into 28 households of the officetel. Thus, Defendant V was about the second floor of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment of the second apartment.