beta
Text
The judgment below
No. 6-A of the judgment against Defendant B, and No. 7 of the judgment of the court, No. 2. Ad. 1 to No. 7.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B 1 of the facts in the judgment of the court below (Article 8 of the facts in the judgment below) Defendant B 1 of the victim AC of the victim was a remittance of KRW 50 million to the Saemaul Bank account of this case for the purpose of repaying the existing loans of Q to recover credit necessary for the work loan prior to the operation loan in the name of Q, and the court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C1) In fact, Defendant C did not have conspired in advance with Defendant B, etc. to commit the crime of forging a private document and uttering of the above investigation document, and did not have been involved in the fraud related to the CA and CB, but the lower court found Defendant C guilty of all the parts that Defendant C did not participate. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts was based on the evidence adopted, and found facts as indicated in its reasoning. 1) Unlike Defendant B’s assertion that at the time of the instant case, victim AC used the instant Saemaul Bank account, Defendant B used the instant Saemaul Bank account, and the victim AC appears to have used the Defendant’s Saemaul Bank account in its name. 2) At the time of the instant case, Defendant B was under demand for repayment from A Q to obtain work loans by introducing AC to A Q to resolve its obligation. However, if A Q’s existing obligation was to be repaid prior to the instant work loan, the Defendant B was merely liable for the repayment of the obligation, and the victim AC promised to provide work loans.