beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant - misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not state the victim that “for tendering,” or “to return money immediately after the capital increase,” and that “for the cost of producing and operating overseas export products by Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”)” and agreed to return money received from the victim when the purchase price of overseas enters.
However, the money received from the victim alone was insufficient to cover the cost of the production of overseas export products. Among the money received from the victim in consultation with the victim, 100 million won was used as a loan under the TPP service contract for the reconstruction of the Welfare Facilities for the Aged (hereinafter “PMF contract”) concluded between T and E, and the service cost received in compensation was prepared, and the remaining cost of the production of the exported product was decided to reduce the total amount by fixing the cost of the production of the exported product as the amount of the capital. However, during the service process under the above PMF contract, there was a dispute between T and the victim due to the excessive desire of the victim, which caused the suspension of the PMF service, the remaining cost of the production of the exported product was not prepared, and therefore, it was not limited to the payment for the capital increase, but did not have no intent to use it from the beginning as
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case only with the statements of the victim with no credibility and the evidence insufficient to find the guilty guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles
Defendant
In addition, the defense counsel stated the grounds for appeal on July 16, 2014 as well as on the first day of the trial. However, since the notification of the receipt of the trial record on the defendant was served on March 14, 2014, the allegation of unfair sentencing was filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.