beta
Text
1. Defendant B among the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
2. Defendant A and Defendant A.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
A misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by Defendant A recognized that Defendant A aided and abetted the fraud of P from November 8, 2010 to September 10, 2013, but it was erroneous for the following reasons.
Defendant
A did not meet the victim AE after March 201.
Defendant
A, even until July 2011, there was a belief that RR forest held by Q and P (hereinafter “P”) was a strong product and that it was a fact in the plan for the introduction of Japanese capital. As such, A was unaware of the intention of P’s fraud at all.
Defendant
A’s first talking about the Defendant’s business of Q father is around 2006, and around September 2010, introducing P to the Defendant was intended to explain the progress of Q father’s business and confirm the possibility of repayment to the Defendant. Thus, Defendant A did not introduce P to the victim for the collection of loans to Q father, but it was not possible for P to expect that P borrow additional money from the victim.
P With respect to KRW 21.582 billion borrowed from a victim after August 2011, 201, Defendant A cannot be deemed to bear an obligation under the principle of good faith to notify the victim of the situation of the insolvency of Q department and the morale of P. And there is no causation between Defendant A’s failure to notify it and the fraud of P.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
B misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B did not recognize that there was an illegal part of the P's act, but it cannot be said that Defendant B conspireded for P and crime since it did not recognize the fraud itself against the victim. Defendant B is responsible for the fraud against the victim.
Even if Defendant B’s participation in the crime is a mere aiding and abetting.
The court below's decision on unfair sentencing.