beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendants conspired to conceal their claims against Defendant A with respect to Defendant B, thereby evading compulsory execution. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was that Defendant A was not paid KRW 25,250,000 to D, and on February 23, 2013, Defendant A filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the deposit amount. On February 7, 2014, the first instance court rendered a judgment ordering D to pay KRW 25,2550,000 to the victim E, and the above E did not pay each of the loan obligations amounting to KRW 98,00,000 to the victim F, and the above E, etc. was prepared to file a lawsuit against the Defendant. The above F tried to enforce a compulsory execution against the loan obligations amounting to KRW 40,000,000,000 among the loan claims that Defendant A had against the Defendant under the provisional seizure order issued by Suwon District Court was sought on February 19, 2014.
On April 2014, the Defendants conspired to prepare a receipt as if they were to complete the loan obligation even though Defendant B did not have to complete the loan obligation with respect to the above loan obligation.
The Defendants prepared a receipt stating that “the Defendant A loaned money to Defendant B as of April 10, 2014,” and “the full repayment was made after receiving full return of the money that Defendant A lent to Defendant B,” according to the said public offering, had the same external amount as the debt actually fully paid, and the Defendants had the same amount as the debt fully paid.