beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant was the representative director of the Company B, but only 30% shares, and was not in a position to make a decision on the conclusion of the food materials supply contract (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) and the receipt of deposit money and the use of construction cost as stated in the facts charged. At the time of concluding the instant supply contract, the Defendant was anticipated to be able to operate a restaurant until the time of the Defendant delivery agreement, and there was no intention to commit fraud.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding: (i) the Defendant entered into a food supply contract under the preceding condition that the construction of a restaurant building will be completed on or around March 2015 at the seat of shareholders, such as co-offender C, and concluded a plan to use at least KRW 100 million as construction cost with money as security deposit; and (ii) the Defendant, as alleged above, appears to be not a person who led the operation of the restaurant with the investment of KRW 430 million as a person who was recommended to invest in C, etc. upon investment recommendation, but the Defendant was aware of the fact that the construction fund was 430,000 won from the commencement of the restaurant construction (169 pages of investigation record), and it appears that the other shareholders did not make any additional investment in money, and in the absence of other investors, the Defendant appears to have agreed to prepare the construction fund in accordance with the above plan, and (iii) the Defendant’s personal seal delivery contract of this case under the instant plan.