The judgment below

Of them, the part on the crime No. 4 of the judgment of Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A As to the fourth crime in the judgment of the court.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: four months of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. As Defendant A1’s misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime No. 4 in the judgment of Defendant A1, the Defendant ceased to exist after the commencement of the commission of the crime of fraud, the lower court, despite that punishment should be reduced or exempted in accordance with Article 26 of the Criminal Act, did not reach the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where Defendant A’s conduct of a judgment of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine was commenced and the commission of a crime was suspended at his own free will before the crime was completed, the suspension was not caused by circumstances that interfered with the completion of a crime under the general social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do957, Jun. 13, 1997). As to this case, the health class and the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below is acknowledged as follows.

1) On November 20, 2009, L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) decided to purchase the cargo line K (156 tons) under the name of Defendant A’s female life to purchase at KRW 540,00,000 in the purchase price, and to offset the down payment and the first intermediate payment of KRW 260,000 in the purchase price against the debt equivalent to the same amount that Y had already incurred to Y.

L thereafter filed a lawsuit against Y and Y seeking the return of 260,000 won of the down payment and the first intermediate payment to Y and Y on the grounds that the above sales contract was rescinded due to the Y and M’s ear’s ear and M’s ear, and the above court accepted L’s claim on August 29, 2013 with 3085 (principal lawsuit) and 2013 combined 3051 (Counterclaim) and jointly sentenced L to a provisional execution order ordering Y and M to pay 260,000,000 won and delayed damages (M against this case).