logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.06 2015노3506
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts did not have conspired to the facts that Co-Defendant A, C, D and fraud, violation of the Commercial Act, false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed, the exercise of the authentic deed, and the violation of the Subsidy Management Act.

(2) Even if not, on the basis of an unreasonable sentencing decision, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts: (i) Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant C provided that both investigative agency and investigative agency should explain the diesel investment scheme of this case and the title investment scheme of this case to the court below; (ii) Co-Defendant D also stated that the defendant was unjustly paid government subsidies under the defendant's instruction and explanation of government subsidies; (iii) the defendant operated a diesel club; (iv) the defendant was in office as an AO of the diesel Investment Association; and (v) the defendant demanded reasonable compensation by explaining the above investment scheme and the government subsidies system; and (v) the registration of alteration of capital increase with one capital increase was the result of the diesel investment as a matter of course and the procedure expected to receive tentative investments; and (v) the payment of stock price for the actual investment to investors that did not make an investment; and thus, (v) the defendant's act of withdrawing the stock price of this case was not included in the contents of the AO investment.

arrow