beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, November 14, 2013
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
(a) The first deliberation type by the Prosecutor (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unjust;
B. Defendant 1) 1 is the victim H and I, and the person who entered into a self-consumption loan agreement on April 30, 2014 with the victim H and I, and the person who entered into a self-investment agreement on July 14, 2014 is the Vice President AA of the Company E (hereinafter “E”) and the employee F and G who were instructed by the Vice President A of the Company E (hereinafter “E”).
The defendant did not participate in the conclusion of the above contract, and the defendant did not deceiving the above victims.
② At the time of receiving the borrowed money and the investment money from the victim H and I, E had the intent or ability to repay the above debt, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the defendant.
2) At the time of receiving the investment money from the victim K to the misunderstanding of the fact that the crime of fraud was committed against the victim K, E had sufficient intent or ability to repay the above debt, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant.
3) Errors about the part concerning fraud against victimOs
② After the conclusion of the above contract, the victimO actually received profits from his/her business for eight months at the department store: Provided, That as the status of E’s funds has deteriorated thereafter, only the deposit shall not be returned.
Therefore, the defendant acquired money from the victimO by receiving the money without the intention or ability to return the money from the beginning.
shall not be deemed to exist.
4) The punishment of unfair sentencing 1 deliberation is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not directly deception the victim H and I, the Defendant as the representative director of E.