beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: The lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for an excessive amount of eight months, reflecting the sentencing of the part on which the Defendant was pronounced not guilty among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to an unreasonable sentence.
B. A prosecutor: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence as to the criminal intent of breach of trust regarding occupational breach of trust among the criminal facts of this case. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant promoted a steel sales contract to acquire illegal consideration equivalent to KRW 250 million, the motive for breach of trust is recognized. In addition, the Defendant, despite being aware that the Defendant was not higher than the security value of the coolant already offered as a security to a third party, should use the horses that are reduced at H in the lower court. The Defendant concealed the above security provision. If the Defendant becomes aware of the fact of dumping distribution of H. H., it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the possibility that H would incur damage which would not be supplied with the steel normally. Accordingly, the lower court’s acquittal portion is revoked, and the conviction should be pronounced. 2) The lower court’s punishment is too unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1 The lower court denied the Defendant’s criminal intent of breach of trust, etc. on the grounds of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment.
① As to the fact that the value of the coolant, which was offered as security for the payment of the purchase price under the contract of this case to purchase steel for the purpose of resale, was lost, the Defendant appears to have not been aware of it due to the deception of D, etc., and this part of the facts charged also seems to be premised on this.
In this regard, D is recognized as deceiving the accused, etc.