beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and B1) The Defendants asserted the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by the said Defendants are sufficient to pay the said amount because the MM corporation, a local government, has invested 10% in Yangyang-gun, a local government, and the MM corporation is the victim L
(2) In the event that the payment of goods is not possible, both Pyeongtaek-gun was known to be responsible for the payment of goods. Accordingly, even though some of the above Defendants were found to have violated the provision, the above Defendants thought that it would be possible to recover the goods from M&A, and thus, the above Defendants cannot be deemed to have the intent of breach of trust. (2) Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the occupational breach of trust with R was found only after the transaction was conducted without entering into an agreement and securing claims, and Defendant B believed that the unpaid credit amount was immediately deposited.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had the intent to commit a crime of breach of trust.
3) The lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment of each of the Defendants) against the above Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the above Defendants is too unreasonable.B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that the above Defendant was aware of the commencement of credit transaction with MM Corporation or the fact that the above Defendant’s involvement in the credit transaction, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the above Defendant conspiredd to commit the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by Defendant A and B.
2) The lower court’s sentence against the above Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A and B (the three-year imprisonment of each of the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A and B's argument about violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).