beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (1) As to the occupational breach of trust as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant Company E (hereinafter “victim Company”).
3) The instant PC 81 owned by the Defendant Company G (hereinafter “G”)
(2) The Defendant merely arranged to deliver the PC to G or L, but the remittance of the money from G or L is merely a partial repayment of the money that he borrowed to him, and there is no fact that H who operated G prevents H from paying the above PC price to the victim company. ② As to the fact of an perjury to H as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant provided 51 of the instant PC 81, which was the 51st PC (hereinafter referred to as “Tania”).
A) There is no investment in kind in H, and there is no fact that the Defendant asked H to testify as if he/she independently handled the instant 81 unit of the PC. Even if the Defendant asked H to do so, the testimony that H independently handled as long as he/she supplied the instant 81 unit of the PC to G and issued a tax invoice and a detailed statement of transaction in G in the future cannot be deemed false. ③ As to the perjury in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendant agreed that D would pay KRW 75 million to the Defendant and transfer the credit sales claim of KRW 45 million to G (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
The agreement of this case is not KRW 77.5 million, but the sum of cash payments and the assignment of claims is KRW 122.5 million. In addition, there is no fact that the defendant asked K to testify that the agreement of this case is KRW 122.5 million. In addition, with respect to each attempted fraud in the decision of the court below, the defendant did not induce H and K to testify to testify false facts, and each of the above testimony is not true, and it is not guilty of attempted fraud. 2) The defendant's imprisonment with prison labor of the court below as to each of the above testimony in the decision of the court below is not guilty.