beta
Text
All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Grounds for appeal;
A. Inspection: With respect to the provision of Article 3 of the Automobile Contract for Export, the defendant was aware of the fact that he exported three vehicles for the high-priced ones, and he received a request from H to request the corporate seal impression of Co., Ltd. D to issue a tax invoice, and said H to use the paper "to sell the door"; thus, the defendant allowed the export of all documents necessary for the export, including the export automobile contract, to affix a seal that is prompt in the name of D, and since there was no consent from E representative director of Co., Ltd., the part of the export automobile contract was also established, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise.
In addition, even if only the portion which was found guilty is found guilty, the sentencing of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too uncomfortable.
B. Defendant: In relation to the issue of the tax invoice section, the Defendant obtained the transfer registration of ownership on the highest vehicle from the D representative director E, and the transfer was also approved, even without the direct consent, E’s implied or presumed consent was granted to all the acts accompanying the disposal of the lowest vehicle, and therefore, the lower court’s judgment that determined otherwise even if the Defendant did not have any criminal intent under the above article, is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.
Even if it is found guilty, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. In order to recognize the liability for the crime of Article 1 of the Automobile Contract for each export of this case against the defendant with respect to the violation of the Article 1 of the export automobile contract for the above export of this case, the intent of the above export automobile contract for each export should be recognized.
However, the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, that is, the defendant's consent to L.