beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.03.30 2014노6526

근로기준법위반등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the misunderstanding of facts (the fraud against the victims No. 1 to 8 of the Crime List No. 2013 Man-Ma5933), according to the same business contract, if the victims make an investment in one of the stores operated by the Defendant Company, the said victims are only paid a certain percentage of the sales of the store and do not guarantee the investment principal.

(2) In addition, at the time, the Defendant Company had the ability to pay the proceeds normally to the above victims, and was actually paying the proceeds for a considerable period of time under the investment agreement. However, since the mid-2012, the management of the Company is difficult and the investors requested the return of the proceeds, the Defendant Company’s sales claim was provisionally attached to the Defendant Company’s sales claim, thereby preventing the Defendant from implementing the investment agreement.

(3) Therefore, since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged although the defendant did not deceiving the victims as stated in this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant attempted to fully cover the sales deposit and the test cost with the money invested from investors because there was no particular fund due to the increase in sales of the company from the end of 2009; and (ii) the Defendant attempted to fully cover the money invested from investors (hereinafter “investigation record of the instant case No. 2013 Man-Ma5933”).

(2) From 2009 to 2011, the Defendant Company borrowed funds from the Company’s operating capital due to a decrease in sales due to the cause of remedy, etc.