beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 15,000,000 won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Defendant A merely believed Defendant A’s horse with respect to the takeover of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and invested in Defendant B in his own name with money from the victims, and there is no fact that Defendant A did not have any criminal intent of defraudation and deceiving victims.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding Defendant A guilty.
2) Defendant B did not agree to receive investment from the victims, and only received the instant money with Defendant A’s investment money.
In addition, the failure of the business through H acquisition is due to the fact that S andO, which decided to invest KRW 500 million in the acquisition fund, did not invest KRW 500 million in the acquisition fund, unlike the agreement, and that all the money invested from A was disbursed at the acquisition cost and Defendant B did not take any profit, and there was no fact that Defendant B made any fraudulent act with respect to H acquisition.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding Defendant B guilty.
B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants alleged to be unfair in sentencing (ten months of Defendant A’s imprisonment and one year’s imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants.
1) According to the evidence above, Defendant B’s acquisition of KRW 4.5 billion in fact H’s capital.