beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B 1) In the case of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the calculation of profit amount) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the Aggravated Punishment Act”), the amount of profit per se must be constituted. As such, the difference which is the difference between the money given from the victim and the money given should be deemed the amount of profit or the amount of fraud.
In other words, in the case of 1,26,50,00 won, which is the price of equipment(s) and 68,20,000 won, which is the price of the rasher, as shown in the judgment of the original court (hereinafter referred to as “crime list”) and 1,20,000 won, which is the price of the equipment(s). 2, in the case of a year indicated in the crime list No. 2, the total amount must be deducted, or at least 38,50,000 won, which is paid by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) to I (hereinafter referred to as “I”), and at least 3,850,00 won, and the aggregate of KRW 1,870,000,000,000,000,000 shall be deducted. 3,000 won,000 won, 3,081,781,000 won and 981,000.
Accordingly, each of the above amounts to deduction is not less than 50 million won, so it cannot be regarded as a violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).
B) Each crime listed in the list of crimes Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are committed on a yearly basis, but the criminal intent of Defendant B is not single, and the method of committing the crime differs from each other, so it shall be judged as a substantive concurrent crime. In this case, the amount of benefits of each crime does not constitute at least KRW 500 million, and therefore, it shall not be determined as a crime of violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud).
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.
B. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts)