beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 7,00.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) filed a claim for excess of the actual packing work in collusion with A to pay the packing price from the damaged company, and the 38 million won paid to A was personally lent. However, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentencing unfair (the Defendants) committed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, two years of suspended execution of six months of imprisonment for Defendant B, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant B’s assertion as to the instant appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected Defendant B’s assertion in detail with the argument and the decision on it under the lower part of the evidence of the judgment. In addition, in comparison with the record and examination of the lower court’s aforementioned judgment, the following circumstances, namely, ① Defendant B’s first knowledge at an investigative agency and a court of the lower court, which were around January 2013, did not have a personal-friendly relationship with A when it was demanded to lend money from A, and, from around 2013, the lower court was in a bad credit standing situation.
The statement (Evidence No. 188 pages, Court Records No. 274 pages), ② The loan certificate of this case contains a total of KRW 34 million on the loan certificate of this case. Upon the audit commencement, A stated that the amount borrowed from Defendant B was KRW 34 million on April 17, 2015 (Evidence No. 333, 194 pages), but the amount actually paid to Defendant B was 38 million, ③ Defendant B was present as a witness at the court of original instance and actually made to A.