beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B assumed office as the president of the Hague Foundation around March 2016 and carried out the key projects, such as the Human People’s Projects, etc., the Defendant B held the Han Dop punishment in Seoul around March 8, 2016, and decided to hold the said events in London on August 2016 (However, the above events in London did not take place in the Belgium around the end of March 2016). The money the Defendants received from the victims was merely the money as a donation for the expenses to contribute to the said Han Dop as a model, not the money borrowed from the victims without intent or ability to repay.
B) Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant B used the horses of Defendant A, “the victim deposited money in the name of expenses for contributing to the model of the Korean PP and support fund for the charity business,” as they are believed, for the appointment of the president of the HP foundation and the holding of the Korean PPP, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime with Defendant A.) on a different premise, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of all the facts charged of this case on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Even if both the facts charged of this case are found guilty, considering the fact that the total amount of damage was deposited, etc., each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, one year, one year of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact that the Defendants did not seem to be unconstitutional by denying a crime despite the fact that they obtained a large amount of money from the victims on the ground of a false statement, such as the H Foundation’s funds and the collection of money, etc., the Defendants did not seem to be consistent with the justification against common sense.