beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misapprehension of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part of the facts of the lower judgment’s misunderstandings or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the corresponding part of the paragraphs 3 and 5 of the facts constituting the crime was withdrawn at the first instance trial.
1) On the other hand, the sales price of the dispatching paper stated in the facts charged in this part of the facts charged in the judgment below was KRW 325,534,010, and the total amount of the breeding fee corresponding to the expenses was KRW 433,050,000, and only the loss was incurred.
Therefore, since there was no profit in itself that can accumulate advance payment under the investment contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that paying the victim the advance payment to the entrusted farmer as a fee for raising the entrusted farmer without paying the advance payment.
B) The instant contract is deemed to include KRW 250,00,000 in the total proceeds regardless of the selling price of the invoice, and deposit it into the account of the victim at the time of sale. However, even if this part of the contract does not occur, if it is the intent that it should be paid to the victim by accumulating an unconditional advance payment even if it does not occur, it is unfair and invalid.
2) As to paragraphs 4 and 6 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, since the market price at the time of return from the entrusted farmers as stated in this part of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below was lower at the time of receiving the return from the entrusted farmers, and that it was not possible to sell it immediately, it would be more and more for a few months, and that it would be favorable to sell it as the market price due to a high-quality fat, raising in addition, or paying the breeding fee to D, etc., without immediately selling it.
As such, it is reasonable for the defendant to deduct the additional cost for the sale of returned milk from the returned milk sale price. As such, the defendant added part of the sale price.