beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B 1’s act of re-election of the crime Nos. 1 through 43, 58 through 88 (excluding 72,80) in the table of crime Nos. 1 through 43, 58 through 88 (excluding 72,80) among the criminal facts in the judgment below against Defendant B, does not constitute the crime of taking property in breach of trust for the following reasons:
However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① It is true that Defendant B received money from N who operates M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) as in the sequence 1 to 20 of the List of Crimes attached to the judgment of the court below.
However, after the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) refused to bring in M’s waste from the mid-2012, the said money is an honorarium for providing that Defendant B may introduce AD, which is an adjacent waste disposal business entity to N and treat wastes, and is not a consideration for illegal solicitation.
② The money received by Defendant B from R (hereinafter “W”) running the company W (hereinafter “W”), such as the Nos. 21 through 43 of the List of Crimes attached to the judgment of the court below, is merely an honorarium for allowing R to bring in the “X” without cost any waste synthetic resin, and is not a consideration for illegal solicitation.
③ Defendant B’s receipt of money from trading companies, such as the No. 58 through 88 (except for 72, 80) in the annexed list of crimes (2) in the judgment below, is a so-called “the value of rice specialization” in line with the name of the business entity, and is not a consideration for illegal solicitation.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one month of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Prosecutor 1) In light of the content of Defendant B’s work performed by Defendant B, the relationship between the victimized company and F and H, etc.