beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (each point of violation of trust) are the substance of the instant case, which Defendant A is a company to which he belongs (hereinafter “O”).
Defendant B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant supplier”) who is the representative of the subcontractor in order to raise the necessary funds.
A) The estimated price of the goods to be supplied with the cooperation of the supplier was paid as the price for the goods. However, the Defendant Company received the fixed amount of money and returned it again to the Defendant Company, and disbursed it as expenses for business conference and entertainment, etc. spent for the new business that the O promoted at the time. This was first used for the O’s business expenses while the O received and kept it back through the so-called money laundering process through the subcontractor. As such, Defendant A did not have an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and even from the mobilized subcontractor’s perspective, it was merely returned the excessive amount of money under the agreement, and thus does not cause any damage. Thus, there is no room to intervene in the “illegal solicitation”. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of each charge of breach of trust taking part of this part against the Defendant Company, or erred by misapprehending legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Defendant B, C, and D1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (each of the charges of giving property in breach of trust by Defendant B, C, and D received goods less than the actual amount of delivered goods upon Defendant A’s request, and returned again to Defendant A according to the agreement with Defendant A.
The defendants could not refuse the request of the defendant A, who is the person in charge of the original office as the subcontractor.