beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The Defendant did not state the same words as the facts constituting the crime in the attached Table 1, 2, and 4, as indicated in the judgment of the court below.
② The Defendant sent I, on November 11, 2013, a text message as stated in the crime No. 3 of the List of Crimes listed in the lower judgment, to I, but, as it is a company with no substance, D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) does not mean any false fact.
2. According to each legal statement of K, I, and L of the lower court’s witness, the fact that the Defendant made the same remarks as the facts of each of the crimes listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the crimes listed in the judgment of the lower court can be acknowledged.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court: ① the F is the representative director and the purpose of D was the corporation that is the real estate enforcement business; ② the 3rd floor of the R building registered as the location of the principal office in the certified copy of the corporate registry; ② D established an office at the site when the main business was the real estate development business; and ② was completed when the business was completed, the office was completed at the site; thus, even if there was no office at the place indicated as the principal office and the name of the principal office, the corporation does not operate its business.
The defendant can not be readily determined, and the defendant seems to have sufficiently known such contents, and the defendant has embezzled part of the business promotion expenses he received from S (T).
In light of the fact that F is not recognized as embezzlement of business promotion expenses, D is not an entity, but it is recognized that the Defendant knew of such fact, such as the facts stated in the judgment below, was aware of the fact.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.