beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (A) No. 1) No. 2015, 3049, the Defendant, as a witness, made a false statement contrary to memory, but the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not have by deceiving L by deceiving L to commit fraud (2017 high group 2081). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
C) The Defendant did not participate in the act of forging the private document forgery and the use of the falsified document (2017 Highest 3944.1). The Defendant’s act of presenting the above transaction contract to AF staff of the branch office AF of Gwangju Bank while counseling on loan cannot be seen as an act of presenting the above transaction contract. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.
(c)
Defendant
C1) In fact, the instant loan was led by A, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the purchase price was in KRW 620 million in the real estate transaction agreement, and the victim employee AF confirmed that the actual transaction price was KRW 230 million in the register before the instant loan was already stated in the real estate transaction agreement, but the loan was made according to the amount of appraisal.
Therefore, although the defendant did not participate in the crime A, and the relation between the defendant's deception, the victim's mistake, the purchase price and the loan cannot be recognized, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
(d)
The sentencing of the lower court on the Defendant A and C of the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s mistake of fact.