beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
Defendant B of the Prosecutor.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles / [2016Dadan8900] In collusion with U and T, Defendant A played a core role in receiving and delivering to U the money equivalent to KRW 300 million from the victim E by receiving the money of KRW 300 million from the victim E in collusion with U and T, and there is no fact that Defendant A knew the victim E of his own ability to perform his own repayment or by deceiving the use of the money.
Defendant
A There is no fact that the victim E speaks as described in this part of the facts charged.
Since victim E had already possessed a cashier's check, it cannot be said that victim E has lent money in trust with Defendant A's words.
Nevertheless, the victim E’s statement to this different purpose is not reliable.
As decided by the court below, it is consistent with the loan certificate prepared by Defendant A and written by Defendant A as the representative director of Defendant A, but it is nothing more than that written by Defendant A as the intent of guarantee upon U's request.
B) [2017 Godan3511] As to the case, the person who borrowed KRW 435 million from the victim I to the victim I about the defraudation of KRW 435 million from the victim I is not the defendant A, but K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”).
AC, one shareholder and one actual operator, and Defendant AC. Defendant A merely delivered its intent in accordance with AC’s instructions, and did not have obtained money by deceiving the victim I, and did not do so with AC. The victim I does not have credibility by making an inaccurate and consistent statement concerning the circumstance in which money was remitted. The victim I does not have credibility by making a statement. The victim I shall be L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”).
The transfer was made to the account, and the actual owner of L is AC, and the defendant A is not related to the above company.
In other words, AC needs a number of SPCs to adjust the legal relations related to the company, and Defendant A established several SPCs according to the direction of AC.