beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the part of the judgment of the court below not guilty, in light of the victim's statement, etc., the defendants can be found to have conspired to deceptioned the victim, and the defendants did not have the intent or ability to repay the money received from the victim at the time. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of
B. The lower court’s exemption of the sentence against Defendant A is too unjustifiable and unfair.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants conspired to deception the victim E, thereby deceiving the victim E, and therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is justified.
The victim, on a consistent basis, consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, introduced the defendants, and only made the defendants in the D office operated by the defendant A by introducing the defendants, and the defendant A made investment recommendations in the D office operated by the defendant A. The defendant A stated that the defendant A made six debts in the D office where the defendant B operated the livestock product business and the defendant A was capable of importing at least 20 million won per month, and the defendant B made a loan to engage in the livestock product distribution business that the defendant B provided to him with the refined meat store, thereby making a contribution to the money amounting to KRW 100-2 million per month.
B. Defendant B also made the following statements in compliance with the victim’s above statements at an investigative agency.
1. On October 4, 2013, the term "victims" in Defendant A's office supplies static meat to the static meat points.