beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (mainly charged part) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case, despite the fact that the Defendant only arranged a car rental contract as a travel agency and did not conclude each of the instant lending contracts on behalf of the rental car company.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor's judgment on the grounds for appeal was examined as follows: (a) while maintaining the original facts charged against the Defendant prior to the remanding of the case, the prosecutor changed the facts charged as described in paragraph 3(a) below; and (b) as stated in paragraph 2(a), the applicable provisions were added to “Article 30 of the Criminal Act” in the primary applicable provisions; and (c) the subject of the judgment was changed by the court of first instance prior to the remanding of the case, and thus, the judgment of the court below could no longer be maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.
3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. The summary of the primary charge is a person who operates a travel company and engages in a travel agency business.
1) On April 201, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract to lend the said company’s automobile rental business to N for 24 hours at the office of the above travel agency on the second floor M and 2nd floor on the second floor of Jeju Island, under the qualification of the agent of the Autosian Co., Ltd., and entered into a contract to lend the said company’s automobile rental business to N for 24 hours, not for 53,000 won of the terms and conditions reported by the said company. The said company leased the said vehicle to N in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said contract, and did not implement the reported rental terms and conditions.