beta
Text
1. Defendant A
A. The appeal by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor against the first judgment is dismissed in entirety.
(b).
Reasons
I. Of the first instance judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant E, and the Prosecutor, the part of the conspiracy with Defendant A, etc., Defendant A, etc., to jointly manage AH, etc., the first instance judgment on the grounds of appeal by asserting misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the main points of the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, etc., are to jointly manage AH, etc., but in fact, Defendant A was excluded from the management of AI by AH, etc., and was not involved in the execution of the AI’s funds, and was also repaid to AM by the bond company, etc., and CB was merely a creditor of AH, not a creditor who has lent the acquisition price to Defendant A, etc.
Therefore, AH et al. embezzled in the process of executing AI funds.
Even if the defendant A conspireds to do so, it cannot be said that the defendant A conspired.
Defendant A, No. 1 attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance on individual criminal facts, was appointed as a director of the AI, and it was not anticipated that Defendant A would withdraw the company's funds without permission until he was at risk of being held responsible for embezzlement or breach of trust. Defendant A did not have any intention to inflict damage on AI and did not have any profit due to withdrawal of deposits in India, and there was no fact that Defendant A participated in the withdrawal.
In addition, since AH borrowed the same amount from other states immediately after the withdrawal of the company's funds, there is no substantial damage to AI.
The direct evidence of the charge No. 2 of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the statement of the court of first instance. However, the direct evidence of the charge of this part of the crime No. 2 is the statement of the court of first instance, in light of the following: (a) there is no objective evidence that conforms to the statement; (b) the process of acquiring DI (hereinafter “DI”) led by AH; and (c) there is no motive for AH to make a false statement in order to reduce the amount of profit he acquired.