beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is unfair that the second instance judgment of the Defendant (the second instance judgment’s sentencing is unfair) sentenced to the Defendant (the penalty of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.
B. Regarding the first instance judgment of the prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts as to the acquittal portion among the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court), the first instance court acquitted the Defendant, but it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of Gambling 600 around October 201, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the first instance judgment.
2) In relation to the judgment of the second instance, the second instance court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of fraud, but it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired three million won of land rent from the victim F, and thus, there is an error of misconception of facts in the part of the judgment of the second instance.
2. Determination
A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts as to the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court: “The Defendant, at the Defendant’s warehouse located in the Gu-U.S. Si-U.S. Si-S. Si around October 201, issued approximately KRW 30 million of the market price of the injured party C at approximately KRW 600,000,000, which is the injured party’s possession, and sold the mouth arbitrarily, and embezzled the proceeds from sale at will while being kept free of charge for the injured party.
“The facts charged are as follows: ① there is no other evidence to support the victim’s statement; ② the price for sale of the lecture in custody of the defendant would not exceed KRW 13 million. However, even if the victim’s statement is based on the victim’s statement, the amount of KRW 120 to KRW 130 million may be collected; thus, the defendant is highly likely to not sell all 600 posium; ③ the victim gave KRW 1 million in return for the efforts of the defendant in the process of harvest.
The statement seems to be less than 1 million won in consideration of labor between the 15th day of the defendant and the 600th anniversary of the custody of the 600 Posium.