beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts about the defendants' joint conflict) victim D and E's statements were partially reversed, but this is merely a shot part of the crime process, and the credibility is found as a whole.
I would like to say.
According to the statements of victims D and E, it is sufficient to find the defendants guilty of this part of the charges that the defendants committed money to victims D and E.
However, the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the proof of this part of the facts charged is insufficient is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. It is true that Defendant A (Embezzlement part) misperception of fact (Embezzlement part) Defendant lent KRW 13.5 million to F as security, while Defendant A provided the said car as security to a person whose name is not known, and a person who borrowed KRW 22.5 million to F is the “U”, which is the former owner of money that he borrowed to F.
Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement.
2. The sentence of the first deliberation (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) on the sentencing which was unfair.
2. Determination:
A. Examining the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts in light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case (the Defendants’ joint conflict part) in light of the records, it is justifiable for the first instance court to find the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged as stated in its holding, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts
[A] Although Defendant A was aware of the misunderstanding of a person who borrowed a fraud loan to E, Defendant A did not assault or threaten E as the obsort the Defendants’ attitude (Defendant B “I are not this person who is not a fraud-friendly person) recorded in the record, and Defendant B continued to her.