beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In relation to Section 1-A (A) of the facts charged, Defendant 1 was examined by the victim D at present.
In addition, there was no intention to commit the crime by fraud, since there was no talking that the first priority collective security should be set up, even if the second priority is outside the third priority order, and there was no talking that the second priority collective security should be set up.
B) In relation to the facts charged No. 1-b. 1-2, there was a fluorous failure to pay KRW 100,000,000 inevitably in the process of the construction of the South Sea, and there was assets worth at least KRW 1 billion, including Kimcheon farm and Cho Gyeong-gun, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and there was intent or ability to repay as it is performing multiple construction works, such as the South Sea-Si.
C) As to the facts charged No. 2, in fact, KRW 29,70,00 of the construction cost on December 31, 2015 has been in effect, but Q has been in direct disposition, so the repayment of the debt would be delayed, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court related to the claim No. 1-A of the facts charged, the victim D provided KRW 50 million on the premise of the “establishment of the first priority collective security” in the investigative agency and the court consistently.
In light of the language of the “compensation for Investment” and the “Creation of Mortgage” as stated in the Investment Convention, this is naturally presumed to be premised on the establishment of the first priority collective security (which recognized this point by the Defendant India’s investigation agency). Unlike the purpose of the loan, most of the money issued to the Defendant India was not used to cancel the collective security, and was trying to establish the second priority collective security as well as to set up the second priority collective security.
In fact, the assertion did not comply with the present limit, so this part of the facts charged.