beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) found the facts that Defendant B conspiredd and participated in the embezzlement and fraud of Defendant A, but the court below acquitted Defendant B. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (4 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
B. The Defendant A’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of embezzlement against Defendant B and fraud is that “Defendant B, as executive director of F Co., Ltd., takes charge of the external business (franchise store) expansion business, etc., and, as a de facto joint representative system with Defendant A, he/she operates the said company under the joint representative system. As stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment, he/she embezzled it without paying to the victim even though he/she in collusion with Defendant A in collusion with Defendant A and received KRW 31 million for the purpose of the victim J, and embezzled it without paying to the victim, and, as in paragraph (2) of the said facts charged, he/she received KRW 5 million from the injured party by deceiving the victim J and receiving KRW 5 million from the injured party.”
B. The lower court determined that there was insufficient proof as to the Defendant B’s embezzlement and fraud as indicated in the lower judgment, or the sharing of the commission of such embezzlement and fraud.
In light of the records, such determination by the court below is correct.
Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in this case against Defendant B is beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant does not contain any error of mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.
The prosecutor's assertion of the above facts is with merit.