beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for ten months, respectively.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment of this court is that the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the part exceeding 50 million won of the damage amount is not a crime with respect to the attempted attempted fraud and attempted occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in this case, and did not separately pronounce the defendant on the ground that the defendant was guilty of attempted fraud and attempted occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court below, and that among the facts charged in this case, the defendant A was not guilty on the ground that it does not constitute a crime with respect to attempted occupational breach of trust as an auditor of this case, and did not separately pronounce the defendant on the ground that he was guilty on the ground that he was guilty of attempted occupational breach of trust as a co-principal in the judgment of the
As to this, the Defendants only appealed against the guilty portion of the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion for each reason. However, the appeal against the part of the simple crime is limited to the whole of the crime, and the acquittal portion is also included in the scope of the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do500, Feb. 9, 2001). The scope of the appellate court’s judgment includes the acquittal portion for each reason
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendants were to make the principal of KRW 300 million, including interest and other expenses, on the premise that the former principal is KRW 250 million, and did not make a false report. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, determined otherwise on a different premise. 2) The Defendants’ mistake that the Defendants’ act is legally permissible.
Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. Defendant A, who was sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, suspension of execution of two years, and Defendant B.