beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) although there was a fact that the Defendant received a remittance of KRW 150 million from D, the Defendant did not have any intent to embezzlement it; (b) the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.
B. A prosecutor 1) Regardless of whether a person is held civil liability under a sales contract or a misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part), N andO believed that a defendant is to pay the purchase price and concluded a sales contract with the victim M&A, which is an intentional tool without knowledge that the defendant has no intent and ability to pay the purchase price, and the defendant who received pine trees from the victim by such N andO constitutes an indirect principal offender in fraud. 2) The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part, and on the grounds that “the judgment of the Defendant and the defense counsel is determined (Article 2014Da1473)” was stated in the judgment.
In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, who operates G (hereinafter “G”) and the victim M who operates L, acquired trees from the victim M; (b) the Defendant, even if supplying the trees, did not intend to pay the tree price to M; and (c) entered into a contract with G directors N and BO on December 18, 2012 with M and instructed M to receive the tree price.
The Defendant, at around 11:00 on December 18, 2012, the L office operated by N orO, N orO, who is aware of the foregoing circumstances, M in the Gangnam-gu P in the Yannam-gu, Ma.