beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the defendant obtained the consent from G, the representative director of the victimized company, that he would bring about for the purpose of security, the defendant did not conceal the above documents against the owner's will.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) he stated that he did not allow the Defendant to have the documents causing the claim of this case even if G was in the first instance trial; (ii) he was credibility in his statement; (iii) the damaged company was in coloring the other party to purchase the claim of this case on several routes at the time of the instant case; and (iv) it appears not to have been in the situation of providing the documents causing the claim of this case as security because many investors intended to recover investment money; and (iii) the documents causing the claim of this case were the major assets that the damaged company purchased at KRW 620 million with the damage company, without the consent of G’s property concealment. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant can fully recognize the facts with the documents causing the claim of this case, without the consent of G.
B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, this case is a case where the defendant concealed approximately KRW 21.2 billion in face value, and the defendant denies the crime, and the victim company or G still seems to have no intention to return the documents causing the claim to the victim company or G, and even if the chairperson of the victimized company expressed his/her intent to not return the documents causing the claim to the defendant on June 29, 2013, he/she was tried or is under trial due to the crime of fraud committed while operating the victimized company, and the documents causing the claim of this case have not been actually returned.