beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 19, 2015, Defendant B (A) was aware of the F’s discontinuance of business as the Defendant did not jointly contact with Defendant A, and H traded.
M is normally operated and due to the normal operation of the Do, the number of promissory notes can be fully settled.
I think it was issued only to I, but it was not predicted that the bill was not paid on the date of payment, so there was no intention to acquire it.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of fraud in this part is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.
B) On January 22, 2015, with respect to the fraud of deferment of the payment date of a self-bill, the Defendant is entitled to receive reimbursement of KRW 550 million between M.
In trust, it was intended to postpone the payment period of the pre-existing bill number P bill number P bill, and only requested I to exchange the bill because it was unaware of the fact that the above bill is possessed by the victim Q, so it was requested to do so. Therefore, the defendant by deceiving the victim and acquired profits by deception.
subsection (b) of this section.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of fraud in this part is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too heavy.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to Defendant A), Defendant A knew that he was unable to supply aggregate to H in the future, and even if he was aware that H was operated in the form of sand supplied by H, he could have sufficiently predicted that the financial resources of Defendant B, the issuer of the bill, and Defendant B, the issuer of the bill, can be able to go against the bill due to aggravation of the financial resources of the joint Defendant B, by failing to supply aggregate to H., but he got the victim by deceiving the victim by receiving a discount on the bill issued by B.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A.