beta
Text
The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the conviction of Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
Reasons
1. The first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of occupational breach of trust against Defendant A, and the prosecutor filed an appeal on the ground of misunderstanding the facts, but the first instance court rejected the prosecutor’s appeal prior to the transfer of the case.
Therefore, a prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court prior to remanding the case, and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed and remanded the judgment prior to remanding the case on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the judgment prior to remanding the case, which affected the judgment.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. In full view of the contents of the joint project agreement made between Defendant A and B and the content thereof, and accordingly, Defendant A and B invested in the instant project each of KRW 200 million, Defendant A and B acquired 50 million shares in each of the instant projects, and Defendant A and B obtained 50 million shares in each of the victim company, and the total of four persons obtained 200 million shares in additional investments from H and G divided the victim company’s equity and divided the victim company’s equity, Defendant A agreed to convert Defendant A’s investment share of KRW 200 million into “loan”, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant A performed the obligation to raise KRW 200 million investments pursuant to the said agreement. In full view of the foregoing, the court below acquitted Defendant A on this part of the facts charged on the premise that the money deposited by Defendant A for the establishment and operation of the victim company is investments in the victim company pursuant to the said agreement.
B. The Defendants (misunderstanding of the facts against the judgment of the court below of the second instance, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the sentencing) (i) there was no agreement between Defendant A and B to operate the victim company by investing 200 million won each in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, and thus, Defendant A raised from Defendant E.