beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the accused case shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) prevented Defendant A from issuing the check No. 19-22 each year in the table of crime No. 1 attached to the judgment below, but Defendant B issued it at will. Defendant B issued it at will. Defendant B requested N to grant a discount of 11 copies of the check indicated in the table of crime attached to the judgment below. Defendant A merely received a discount for nine copies, and Defendant A did not receive a discount for one of the four copies of the check number P and No. 2 in the table of crime attached to the judgment below.
3) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B1) above.
2) 2) Defendant B merely borrowed KRW 1.5 million from N on June 27, 2012, and did not borrow KRW 2 million.
3) Defendant B did not borrow KRW 1 million from N around October 2012. 4) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to whether Defendant A participated in the issuance of the check after the disposition of suspension of transaction was taken, Defendant B is sufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant A issued the check No. 19-22 in the attached list of crimes within the scope delegated by Defendant A, so the above assertion by Defendant A is without merit.
1) In relation to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, Defendant A made a statement to the effect that the N would have taken the check upon being aware that there was a disposition of suspension of transaction at the time of the first investigation by the police and the prosecution, but he did not make a statement that he would not issue the check to Defendant B. Defendant B issued the check without Defendant A’s prior cultivation or ex post facto permission during the last few years, and Defendant A received the disposition of suspension of transaction.