Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing) 1) misunderstanding the fact (the fact that on October 2, 2014, the Defendant promised to pay one of the charges to the Defendant instead of paying a separate monthly pay to the Defendant at the time of the establishment of the instant E-stock company. The Defendant sold the previous modern cargo vehicles owned by the victim, and attempted to sell the difference of KRW 27 million to the Defendant by its own means, and the victim completed the registration as the owner of the instant truck as the owner of the instant truck. Thus, the ownership of the instant truck was the Defendant, and (2) the Defendant was in de facto in charge of the Plaintiff’s act under the victim’s permission, and thus, the Defendant did not have any error of misapprehending the ownership of the instant truck, and as such, the Defendant did not have any other act of making the Defendant mistake of the owner’s own cargo vehicle or the registration of the owner of the instant cargo vehicle under the name of each of the instant E-money company or the registration of the owner of each of the instant cargo vehicles under his/her own name.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 5 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The gist of the prosecutor’s assertion (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and the forgery of each private document and the uttering of each falsified document as of August 1, 2014 and August 20, 2014).