beta
Text
Defendant
Of the judgment of the court below against A, fraud against victim N (Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap 565 case).
Reasons
In relation to fraud through deception of the defendant A's misunderstanding value of the reasons for appeal, since the defendant stated that the defendant is a credit for business contact with the victim N, he was provided with the above 's understanding by the above 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''
Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to find the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by reliance only on the statements of the above victim.
The punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendant [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) due to the defraudation of the purchase price of shares as stated in the judgment below, and fraud due to the deceptiveation of the drinking value as stated in the judgment of the court below: 5 years, and 6 months] is too unreasonable.
Defendant
B The punishment (five million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant
The lower court determined that “the Defendant, from June 8, 2010 to around August 2010, was provided with the average drinking value of KRW 4 million on 12 occasions a total of KRW 48 million between the victim N and the police officer from around June 8, 2010, and acquired the alcohol, alcohol, etc. in the aggregate of KRW 48 million.”
In full view of the evidence of the prosecutor's submission or the circumstances cited by the court below, it is insufficient to recognize that the value of alcohol and alcohol offered by the victim N reaches an average of four million won per time.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred in recognizing that the Defendant obtained the Defendant’s “one-time average drinking value of KRW 4 million from the victim N, and acquired the alcohol and the alcohol, etc. with a total of KRW 48 million.”
However, the judgment below's error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the establishment of a crime of fraud as follows. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.