beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the part of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant was entitled to acquire Mad Co., Ltd. as an independent Mad Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) by deceiving the representative G of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to acquire money equivalent to Mad Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not acquire Mad Co., Ltd. from the victim Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not have embezzled Mad Co., Ltd. by receiving 3.2
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. (1) The lower court found the victim company to have purchased verbal subsidiary materials in Korea from around 2004 to Egypt; (2) the victim company complained that he/she had an excessive fypt; and (3) from around March 2012, he/she became fully responsible for the Defendant’s oral subsidiary materials purchase and delivery; and (2) the Defendant had O and fypted.
G Upon learning of G, the purchase of samples or interpretation was intended to work for the victim company from March 2012 to obtain offices in the same gate, and the victim company was liable to pay the leased deposit and monthly rent of the above office to the victim company. The victim company paid 200,000 U.N. monthly to the defendant. ③ Upon request from the victim company for the purchase of oral subsidiary materials, the defendant acquired the amount equivalent to the difference by reporting the price higher than the actual unit price to the victim company and acquired the difference in the same way as the transport price. ④ The defendant issued a receipt under the name of P stating the amount calculated as the unit price reported to the victim company, separately from the receipt received from (J) the subsidiary material supply, and submitted the receipt to the victim company as evidence for the purchase price of the goods, and instead of the actual transport price paid to L company, requested the victim company to prepare a false claim corresponding to the original amount.