beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. Improper sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence of June and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The issue of this case’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is whether the person who first introduced D to E is a defendant or a C. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① A has consistently made a statement to the purport that the person who introduced D himself/herself is C, and ② the defendant appeared as a witness of this court’s fraud case against 3383 E on March 13, 2015.
In full view of the fact that a statement was made (the 299, 301 page of the investigation record), (3) D delivered the purchase price of KRW 35 million on June 8, 2009, and transferred KRW 8 million to a deposit account in the name of C on the same day as the purchase price, it is reasonable to deem that the introduction of D to E is not a defendant, and thus, it is reasonable to view that it was not a defendant. (B) On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not accepted (the conviction of C against whom a public prosecution was instituted for perjury, was finally affirmed). (b) The determination of the unfair assertion of sentencing was examined; (c) in the event a public prosecution was instituted for perjury of the same content, the nature of the crime is inferior; and (d) D did not seem to have shown the opening of the defendant. However, as a result, the content of the instant evidence could have affected the conclusion of the judgment on the subject case; and (d) the testimony of this case may have been convicted of C, a relative of the defendant.