beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) L and J’s statement and the existence of a contract for alteration, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the Defendant received 100 million won down payment on the ground that the victim E, a corporation with the knowledge of the fact that the right to purchase the film of “G” was held a stock company H, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the above right to purchase the film was operated by the Defendant. The court below erred by
2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On August 17, 2007, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would transfer the right of 100 million won to the victim E company (hereinafter “victim”)’s film (hereinafter “the film of this case”) to F at the office of the Defendant’s management company D (hereinafter “D”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C2, because there is D’s right of selling “G” film to the victim E company (hereinafter “victim”).
However, in fact, since the right to publish the above film is not a D operated by the defendant, but a corporation H(hereinafter “H”) has no intent or ability to transfer the right even if the defendant received money from the victim, the defendant made a false statement to F, and the defendant acquired it by transfer from the victim 100 million won on the same day as the transfer money of the right.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) concluded the instant contract on the transfer of the right to purchase the instant film with the victim company; and (b) the testimony of L and J, a complainant agent, corresponds to the above legal proceedings; and (b) the victim company appears to have reported the content of the modified contract and believed that there was the right to purchase the instant film with the Defendant company; (c) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant participated in the preparation, etc. of the modified contract.