beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
The punishment against B shall be set forth as six months.
provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) In fact-finding, the Defendant did not know that the said payment guarantee certificate was invalid at the time when he presents the payment guarantee certificate issued by FFFFF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FFF”) at the natural price (hereinafter “natural price”) of the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “natural price”), and thus, the Defendant did not deception the victim’s natural price or defraud the original equipment.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that it erred and convicted the Defendant.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that there was a fraud about the victim’s natural price, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the said payment guarantee was not effective at the time of presenting the payment guarantee certificate issued by the gold financing on the victim’s natural price. Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim’s natural price or take the original money
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by erroneous finding the facts.
(B) The fraud of the Victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was committed against the victim H, and there was no intention to defraud the Defendant at the time of being supplied with the original from the victim H.
In addition, the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of fraud under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, since the subject to the original supply is not a stock company G (hereinafter referred to as "G").
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by erroneous finding the facts.
(2) The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A (1) The Defendant is the representative of a DNA company that sells livestock products.
The defendant is a defendant in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F around January 31, 2012.