beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
2. The circumstances favorable to the judgment on the grounds of appeal: The defendant seems to have recognized the crime of this case and against himself in the first instance.
The victim is also able to receive an additional repayment through a voluntary repayment and a compulsory execution in the amount of KRW 250 million against the defendant, and it seems that the victim has received an additional repayment through the subsequent compulsory execution.
In 2001, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 won due to a violation of the Automobile Management Act.
The crime of this case is not a crime because it causes damage to the creditor, who is a creditor by changing the name of the business operator in G, which is the screen golf course operated by the defendant with the business operator's name in order to avoid compulsory execution (as a result of the prosecutor's statement by the defendant's prosecutor, the average monthly sales was 6 million won as three studs with the screen golf club system installed (the evidence record 239 pages)).
On September 13, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the lower court a business operator registration certificate on August 8, 2017, to the effect that the Defendant completed the registration of the instant screen golf course under the Defendant’s name through his/her defense counsel. Based on this, the lower court considered the Defendant’s name as the restoration of the business operator’s name and took into account the favorable circumstances in favor thereof. However, the Defendant’s registration of the said business operator under the name of the Defendant was separate from the name of the instant business operator (T: U.), and the name of the instant business operator was not recovered from G to himself/herself, and the Defendant did not recover from the said new business operator’s name (T.). Moreover, the lower court reported the closure of business on October 20, 2017, which was the date on which the lower judgment was rendered, and around eight days after October 12, 2017.
The injured person is the defendant.