beta
Text
Defendant
C, D and prosecutor’s appeals against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1 entered into a tree supply contract with A on behalf of A, and in order to pay the tree price, the Defendant issued a tree supply account statement of KRW 55 million in accordance with the direction of AK and A, the vice president of the victim, and the vice president of A. In addition, the Defendant, upon A’s request, issued a tree supply account statement of KRW 15 million for landscaping trees purchased from the deaf division. Thus, there was no conspiracy between A and the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s punishment (one six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts does not have any fact about around March 2012 with A, and there is no fact that the Defendant conspireds to acquire money from the victim by using false tree supply account books. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
C. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant B: fine of 2,00,000 won, Defendant C, and D: each of the six months of imprisonment, suspended execution of two years, and community service order of 120 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. The instant crime committed by the prosecutor on the assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant B of the Defendant is an unfavorable condition, such as: (a) the Defendant provided a blank wood supply statement to A; and (b) aiding and abetting A to acquire KRW 15 million from the victim by fraud; and (c) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (d) the Defendant did not recover damage to the victim until now.
However, there is a fact that the defendant actually supplied trees, and there is a reason to consider the circumstances that the defendant could have committed the crime of this case in order to recover the price, the degree of participation in the crime of this case is not limited, there is no profit acquired therefrom, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and there is a family member who will support it as the most.