beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, intended to supply 50,000 amblings to the victim’s representative of the E Party, a new president, etc., or a new bank.
There is no false statement, and since the victim's wholesale in the middle of the seven-year market is equivalent to 8,00 won per ppuri, the victim would be able to take a proper mountain at an appropriate price and did not obtain unfair economic benefits.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following facts are acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles. In other words, the victim D appeared as a witness after agreement with the victim at the court below, and the defendant was present at the court below to supply a box of 50,000 won from the new bank to E representative of the party E and the president of the new bank.
The testimony was made to the effect that the victim's statement was consistent and consistent from the investigation stage to the original trial, and it appears that there was no reason to give testimony unfavorable to the victim after the victim's agreement with the victim, the credibility may be recognized in light of the fact that the victim's statement was made. ② The defendant purchased 2,00 ppuri 2,00 ppuri 7 years ago from the victim's damage, and the victim sold 25,00 won per one ppuri 25,00 won per seven years ago, which was 5-6 years old and 7 years old and 7 years old and 7 years old and the wholesale was sold to the victim, so in order to purchase 7 years old and 7 years old from the victim's damage, the victim should have paid the price corresponding to the above price. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has acquired property profits as long as the victim believed to supply 30,000 won per ppuri delivery promise to the Defendant's new bank.