beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
The judgment below
part of acquittal.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant: Although the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the premise that the Defendant was guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and 54 water of this case (hereinafter “the white red”) did not correspond to the land of this case.
Since there are special circumstances, even if the land of this case was resold, it still constitutes the ownership of the victim M, who is the former owner of the land of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the crime of damage on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of appeal as stated in its reasoning.
Further to the circumstances cited by the court below, H, I, and J stated that “A witness of the court below stated that “A person who borrows money from the damaged person is the defendant, and the defendant went to China if he borrowed KRW 20 million and returned KRW 40 million to China” at the Incheon Airport, the court below’s determination is just and acceptable, and there were errors in the misapprehension of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Prosecutor entered into a contract on the transfer of a teahouse and restaurant business with P, which is the final purchaser of the instant land after the said auction.