beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B Imprisonment for eight months, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A, B (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) (1) and the Defendants do not have any public offering in entering into each contract entered into with Co-Defendant C as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, and the Defendants conducted fixed investment projects, such as construction projects of large-scale retail outlet construction companies in Q (hereinafter “OF”) in the operation of C and performed their duties as the head of the cooperative and the head of the managing director, considering that it maximizes the interests of the OF and the purchase of reasonable site for the branch relocation of the OF branch through Q (hereinafter “ Qu”). Thus, there was no breach of duties by the Defendants, and there was no property damage to the OF.
Nevertheless, since the judgment of the court below rendered a guilty verdict on all the charges of this case against the Defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion
(A) On June 24, 2011, agricultural cooperatives related to the business consulting and advisory services contract conducted a fixed investment project for the expansion of marina business and operating stores prior to the instant case, discussed the necessity of external consulting services due to lack of expertise of the OF employees. On June 17, 2011, the board of directors of the OF, which was held on June 17, 201, decided to select Q as a service company by judging Q, which submitted the lowest price estimate, as a qualified business entity. The Defendants only executed the above resolution of the board of directors, but did not induce Q to select the directors, and even if Q did not separately verify the capacity of Q Q’s services contract, this is merely an occupational negligence, and even if the Defendants did not perform the Defendants’ duties. (ii) The sum of Wwon's branch offices related to the lease of V site, including Changwon, Changwon-si, Changwon, Seoul, and 13,000 square meters of the above site.