beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the guilty part and the innocent part, the victim C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of two years and six months and the fine of ten million won, the suspended execution of the sentence of ten million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In light of each statement of operator of G golf course (hereinafter “instant golf course”) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), representative F, victim C, RAB, and representative BN, etc. of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B) According to the investigation report (BD Corporation Vice Director BE telephone statement) AX and related litigation records with the victim D, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) According to the records of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court below, and stated "the scope of appeal" in the petition of appeal as "total" and "the grounds for appeal" as "the grounds for appeal," but submitted within a legitimate period of time, contain only the grounds for appeal as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, Article 361-5 subparagraph 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the grounds for finding that the sentence is unfair," and Article 155 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "Article 155 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure should clearly and clearly state the grounds for appeal or the contents of the answer," and without any other specific reasons, it cannot be viewed that the statement of "the grounds for appeal merely means legitimate grounds for appeal" as "the scope of appeal column."
(Supreme Court Order 2005Mo564 Decided March 30, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2536 Decided April 24, 2008).