beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. The judgment of the court below against the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts without thoroughly grasping the evidence relations as to the degree of involvement in the defendant B's crime, and it is erroneous in the misconception of facts that the defendants did not recognize the public relations by making a mistake as to the share of the
B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won of fine) against Defendant A is too uneased and unreasonable.
Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts against the Defendants
A. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A’s representative operating a mobile phone agency with the trade name of “D” located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and E is an employee of the aforementioned “D”, who is engaged in sales, opening, inventory management, etc., and Defendant B is an employee of the said “D” and is engaged in the business of managing customers, etc.
From September 6, 2013, the Defendants concluded a contract on the consignment of mobile phone devices with I operated by the victim H through G operating “F” in the foregoing “D” store, and agreed to have the mobile phone devices provided from the victim and kept the mobile phone devices, and sell the mobile phone devices to customers who wish to change the new opening of the mobile phone and devices, and to return the non-saleable products through the installment of the cost of equipment.
Nevertheless, around May 13, 2014, the Defendants kept an amount equivalent to KRW 814,00,00 of the J Smartphone market value, which was released and entrusted by the victim. At that time, the Defendants did not open through a telecommunications company, sold it through a mobile phone terminal dealer, and arbitrarily consumed the price in order to cover the cost of living. From around that time to November 27, 2014, the Defendants arbitrarily disposed and consumed the total amount of KRW 28,983,90,00 of the smartphone market value of the total of 36 smartphones, as shown in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, from that time to November 27, 2014.
B. Judgment of the court below.