The judgment below

Of the judgment below, the part concerning the 2020 order order 1358 case shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) on the part of the 2020 Highest 1582 case (unfair argument for sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Of the facts charged by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the part concerning cash payment indicated in the attached Table 1 (the money indicated in the attached Table 2, 5, 8, and 11 once a year) among the facts charged of defraudation under the name of corporate operation fund does not have to be paid by the Defendant from the victim E, and there is no fact that the Defendant defrauded it.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The Defendant did not engage in the same words as the facts charged of defraudation of money in the name of the case processing cost, nor did there have been any fact that he received the money from the victim E, and there is no fact of deceiving or deceiving the victim E, such as the public document room.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing judgment of the first instance court on the part of the 2020 order 1582 case was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Unless there are circumstances such as deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendant among five victims (I, V,Y, AB, X). Although the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim N, W, the victim N did not want to be punished.