beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by the Defendants B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the Defendants conspired with the victim to receive investment money from the victim and to use it for the cost of living, Defendant A directly received 11.5 million won from the victim and used 3.5 million won for the cost of living, and Defendant A voluntarily disposed of the cargo vehicles after Defendant B returned the cargo vehicles, the Defendants acquired the money from the victim in collusion.
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A while recognizing the sole crime of Defendant B, is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
2) Illegal sentencing (as to Defendant B), the lower court’s punishment (for 6 months of imprisonment, 1 million won of fine) is too minor.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. This part of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake in the prosecutor’s facts was at issue in the lower court, and the lower court, taking full account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, acquired money from the injured party in collusion with the Defendant B.
The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded.
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's decision of not guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
1) Defendant A was refused to lend the cost of living to the victim when the first speech was made, and the second request was made to the victim, and Defendant A was unable to pay a separate amount of money, and he was able to say that he was able to resolve it within the framework, and he was able to use the victim’s living cost within the investment amount.