beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) and the fact that each written waiver of retirement allowances prepared by the Defendant ought to be judged as effective around July 22, 2013, and each written waiver 2 ought to be equally interpreted to both the Defendant and G; and (b) the board resolution of the board of directors to suspend payment of benefits by the representative director is valid and there was no resolution of the board of directors to revoke the said decision, the fact that the Defendant voluntarily received retirement allowances and the extinguished claim for payment of benefits and
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment
2. Determination
A. From July 15, 2013 to February 10, 2014, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Victim C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”) established for the purpose of establishing and cancelling collective investment schemes, was engaged in general business affairs, such as fund management of the Victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).
A. On July 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared a “written waiver of the right to retirement payment” stating that “In the case of retirement from a company, the representative director shall not claim the application of the company regulations that the amount of retirement payment shall be determined in three times the amount paid to the employee; (b) submitted the victim company, the Financial Supervisory Service, the auditor, etc., to the victim company, the Financial Supervisory Service, the auditor, etc., claiming the payment of retirement payment for the period of service from November 24, 201 to June 30, 2013; and (c) renounced the right to claim the payment of retirement payment exceeding the amount paid to the employee during the period of service of the representative director on July 15, 2013.
Nevertheless, the Defendant is expected to be the victim at the above office around February 10, 2014.