beta
Text
The first original judgment shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
The Defendants of the second judgment of the court below are the defendants.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles;
A. On the first lower judgment: misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles; 1) Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust in relation to the certificate of grain storage; and Defendant A’s victim CFD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).
) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”)
3) The letter of confirmation of grain storage (hereinafter “instant letter of confirmation of grain storage”) as stated in the facts charged with the intent to jointly and severally guarantee the back-to-date obligation to be jointly and severally guaranteed.
A) It is reasonable to regard the Defendant as preparing and delivering the instant grain storage certificate. Even if there is no joint and several liability for the Defendant’s joint and several liability for the instant grain storage obligation, G is able to file a claim for user’s liability or delivery against the Defendant so long as it has transacted with D with the instant grain storage certificate prepared by Defendant A. Therefore, the victim is not legally liable on the basis of the instant grain storage certificate. Therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem the victim as having suffered any property loss due to the instant grain storage certificate, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles. 2) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of each occupational breach of trust related to the I Joint Project Corporation (hereinafter “I”) and the M rice Processing Complex (hereinafter “M”), and there is a problem in the financial situation of the instant grain storage certificate, and Defendant A was well aware of the circumstances that D would normally pay the price even if he won and grain, and M&A filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s property damage and damages.