beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the obligation of Defendant B, at least KRW 54,717,830, and KRW 10,760,871, and KRW 110,789,071, and KRW 176,267,772, are actually bearing the obligation of Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B’s obligation is not a false obligation.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although the Defendants asserted that the aforementioned grounds for appeal are the same, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged in this case as to the Defendants, taking into account the details of preparation of the process deed, the progress before and after the preparation of the process deed, the relationship between the Defendants, etc., and the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and rejected the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons under the title “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsels.” The lower court’s determination is just and acceptable even if considering the various evidences submitted by the Defendants in the trial. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants.
The Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.
B. Although the Defendants did not seem to have an attitude of reflection while denying the crime until the trial was held, the Defendants took economic benefits, such as evading compulsory execution through active means such as commencing the execution procedure by using a fair deed, and thereby receiving some of the collected money or dividends, etc., and did not recover damage to the collected money or dividends that have been paid up to now, the Defendants were in a disadvantage to the Defendants. However, at the same time, the Defendants filed an application for the execution procedure that had already been in progress during the trial.