beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants A) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) (Defendant A) (the first trial protocol on the trial date at the trial date at the trial date at the trial of the first instance at the trial date at the trial of the first instance at the trial of the first instance at the trial of the first instance at the trial date, the defendant A and his defense counsel withdrawn
The grounds for appeal have been stated in the statement of reasons for appeal, and it is not legitimate grounds for appeal in the event that Defendant A withdraws his assertion of mistake of fact after the lapse of the period for non-compliance with the reasons for appeal. However, considering that Defendant A’s withdrawal of his assertion of mistake of fact at the time, but made a statement to the effect that Defendant A was acting as a marriage broker for the victim, rather than intentionally during the last statement, Defendant A clearly withdrawn his assertion of mistake of fact.
Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion of mistake on the grounds of appeal is not withdrawn) (1) on October 30, 2013, the victim of the fraud committed on October 30, 2013, expecting that the defendant A play a role in the branch office in China even if the defendant A is not permitted under the Chinese domestic law, and provided money necessary for the operation of the branch office. The defendant A, while the defendant actually has a branch office, received money from the defendant A for the business of the Chinese branch office, and received money under the status of the intent and ability to establish an overseas branch office for G, such as using the money received for the business of the Chinese branch office, and going through the contract under the name of the G, so fraud cannot be
(2) On December 18, 2013, which Defendant A received on December 18, 2013, 8 million won (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is not the money received as a deposit for lease, but the money was paid as the expenses for the operation of the office, such as employment in China, since Defendant A used the said money as expenses for the management of the office, such as employment in China.