beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant closed his business on November 19, 2014, 2011, 195.
Although he/she requested salt processing, he/she could not pay the processed amount due to defects in the original body supplied after salt color processing, and he/she does not request salt processing from the beginning without intention or ability to pay the processed amount.
2) The Defendant, with the consent of C operating “D”, prepared and disturbed the original processing instruction to the victim in the name of “D”, and the above C paid the processing cost to the victim in full, thereby acquiring pecuniary profits equivalent to the processing cost from the victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On June 30, 2010, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Victim Ethical Tech Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si; and (b) at the office of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant issued C’s business entity, “D” with the trade name; and (c) requested the processing of raw salt equivalent to KRW 6,141,300 for processing cost; and (d) requested the processing of raw salt equivalent to KRW 4,380,420 for processing cost by the same method as of July 31, 2010; and (d) requested the processing of raw salt equivalent to KRW 3,822,159 for processing cost by the same method as of August 31, 2010.
However, the Defendant, in trading with D on April 30, 2010, prepared a “D’s business registration certificate and work order for the processing of D fibers,” which was issued by requesting the issuance of tax invoices in the name of the victim company, and received, for the Defendant to request the processing of the original unit to the victim company by using the “D’s business registration certificate and work order.” The Defendant was in a situation where it was difficult for the Defendant to pay the processing cost normally due to the auction, etc. of the apartment owned by the amount of KRW 65 million.
Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.