beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Defendant A’s part
A. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The judgment of Defendant A recognizes all of the instant crimes at the latest and reflects them.
Defendant
A has no particular criminal record except once a fine is imposed.
However, Defendant A did not make any effort to carry out the instant coal export and import business after acquiring money from the victim D (hereinafter “victim”).
Nevertheless, Defendant A has denied the crime during the process of committing the instant coal export and import business with the awareness that Defendant A, while carrying the figures of T, has believed only the horses of T and has promoted the coal export and import business of this case.
Defendant
A immediately after receiving money from a victim, he/she has consumed it for personal purposes, and has not made any effort to recover damage until now.
In addition, in full view of the various grounds for sentencing, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment and circumstances after the crime, and the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Defendant B
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant B, along with Defendant A on April 31, 2012, did not know the trade name of the 1st floor of C bank headquarters located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu; and (b) Defendant B sold the coal generated from the mine to a F Singapore branch through E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) where Defendant A is the sponner. If Defendant B lent the coal generated from the mine to a branch of Indonesia, the principal would be paid three times from May 31, 2012, and the proceeds would be paid KRW 50 million for each ten-month period; and (c) Defendant A mentioned the mining owner, etc., and was committed as if Defendant A had the 50% equity interest in Indones mine.
However, in fact, Defendant A shares in Indonesia mine.