beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is difficult to believe the H’s statement, among the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.
In full view of the statements of C, F, N, etc., although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the Defendant on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the amount was an investment amount under the joint signature and seal made between the Defendant, H, and C, and that it was an investment amount under the joint signature and seal made between the Defendant, H, and C. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the amount was an investment amount under the joint signature and seal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. On January 2012, the Defendant charged with the instant charges: (a) at the mutual infinite coffee shop in the vicinity of the Seongbuk-si Si, Seongbuk-si; (b) “The Victim C is equipped with and operates E with a factory for sacrat construction in Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-si.
If 200 million won is invested, 20% of E's equity will be given and operating profits will be distributed.
“.....”
However, in fact, the defendant did not operate alone, but did not have any intention or ability to divide E's shares and distribute the profits therefrom, even if he received the investment from the damaged person, because he did not know of the fact that he had to use the investment funds individually by attracting investment funds as F or by using them as E's purchase price.
Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) obtained the remittance of KRW 14 million from the victim on January 17, 2012; (c) KRW 10 million on January 21, 2012; and (d) KRW 45 million on March 1, 2012; and (b) obtained the remittance of KRW 45 million on March 1, 2012.
3. The judgment of the court below
A. The Defendant consistently received the instant money from the investigative agency to the original trial from H to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant’s partner, and transferred all of the money to F’s deposit account given by F.
argument is asserted.
2.3.