beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Defendant
A shall be the 300,000,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)
A. The judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted each of the defendants, despite the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (as to the acquittal part), is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment.
1) The testimony of Defendant A at each fraud against Defendant A’s victim H is difficult to be deemed to have credibility. According to the fact that there is no agreement related to investment, such as the loan certificate, the description of the bond transfer and takeover contract, and the written investment agreement, etc., the victim H grants the loan, and the victim H’s statement consistently stated is highly reliable. (2) In light of Defendant B’s fraud committed on August 26, 2008 and the relationship between Defendant B and A, etc., Defendant B was well aware of the fact that it is difficult for Defendant B to normally lease and operate the Lcare at the time of the fraud committed on August 26, 2008, and at least did not have any negligence.
3) Defendant B’s statement made on January 6, 2009 by Defendant B was very low in credibility, while Defendant B’s statement made on the part of January 6, 2009 is highly reliable, the victim AO received a large amount of fraud from the Defendants, and there is no particular reason to make a false statement. Therefore, Defendant B received KRW 15,00,000 in cash from the victim AO around January 6, 2009. 4) Defendants’ fraud against the victim AO on December 5, 2009, it is recognized that Defendant B issued the victim AO a face value of KRW 80,000 per share per share, and considering that the above cash receipt actually existed, it is recognized that the Defendants received KRW 80,000,000 from the victim AO around December 5, 2009.
B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of the charge), 39,000,000 won by deceitation of fraud on May 18, 2010 was directly borrowed from the victim AO, and Defendant B was not aware of it.