beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, for a year of imprisonment for a defendant B, and for a defendant C.
Reasons
[Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal] The sentencing of the court below (the sentencing of the defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months; imprisonment of one year and one year, and imprisonment of one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.
However, each of the instant crimes committed against the Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant C, etc., who will be the object of voluntary auction and thereby interfere with the fairness of auction by reporting the right of retention in collusion with Defendant C, etc., who is a construction business operator. In light of the content, motive, means, methods, etc. of the crime, the crime is not good. In light of the content, motive, method, etc. of the crime, the auction was failed more than three times, and the auction was sold more than half of the appraised value, and some creditors, who were not paid dividends therefrom, suffered considerable damages, are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, in the first instance trial, the Defendants paid 250 million won out of 600 million won of the lease deposit to the U.S. Association, which is the lessee and subordinate mortgagee of the auction real estate, and agreed to repay the remaining amount later, and expressed the intent that the above church does not want punishment for the Defendants, and other creditors appear to have recovered the whole or considerable portion of the claims through dividends, repayment, etc., the Defendants are deemed to have no criminal record, erroneous recognition and reflects that they have no criminal record, and they have a time of self-esteem while living in custody for two months in the instant case, each of the instant crimes of this case by Defendant A and the offense of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, which became final and conclusive on October 18, 2013, and all of the other circumstances in the sentencing of this case are considered to be unreasonable.
If so, the Defendants’ .