beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) On July 6, 2010, the Defendant may supply pine trees upon obtaining permission for extracting pine trees from the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in the course of holding consultations on the sale of pine trees for a considerable period of time with the clans, the owners of pine trees located in Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), and received KRW 300 million as contract deposit on July 6, 2010. On June 2, 2010, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for pine trees 120 and received KRW 300 million as contract deposit on July 6, 2010. The Defendant was unable to supply the said pine trees to the victim Co., Ltd. on the ground that it was difficult to permit the extraction of pine trees due to the change of the head of Seocheon-gun-gun National Police on June 2, 2010.
(2) On April 19, 201, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for pine trees located in K on April 19, 201 with the victim company on April 19, 201, and had already entered into a sales contract for Q and the above pine 30 weeks, the owner of the said pine trees, and had already been granted permission to extract the said pine trees. Since Q would not sell the said pine trees, the Defendant would not sell the said pine trees in the end, and would not supply the said pine trees to the victim company, on the ground that Q would not sell the said pine trees unless they purchase the said pine trees together with another pine tree in the amount of KRW 300 million.
(3) Therefore, even though the Defendant had the intent and ability to supply pine trees to the victim company at the time, but was unable to supply pine trees to the victim company due to unexpected changes in the circumstances thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the criminal intent of defraudation at the time.
Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing is sentenced to imprisonment.