beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant had no intention to commit the fraud for the following reasons.
A) The Defendant had the authority for K to dispose of the shares in the name of the wife G.
Recognizing that K believed and believed that K will transfer 40% of the shares in G name to the effect that it will only solve the security issues established in its house.
B) The Defendant’s failure to transfer 80% of the shares of Company E with limited liability and the right of management to the victim is due to the fact that K and G did not comply with the Defendant’s promise, not the result of deceiving the victim from the beginning.
2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to the assertion of mistake of the above facts, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.
In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified even if the defendant considered the rebuttal of the judgment of the court below.
Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit [1] The Defendant did not confirm the lower judgment that the Defendant did not directly confirm the intention of G was expressed with the intention of not having the husband, and thus, it could not be confirmed without permission.
However, in light of the fact that a share transfer contract promises the transfer of shares without directly confirming the intent of the equity right holder, it cannot be denied that there was an incomplete intention on the part of the Defendant. ② The fact that the victim did not confirm the intent of other holders of equity in addition to the belief of the Defendant is due to the receipt of a request from the Defendant for a question or a verbal request from the Defendant, and even if so, the victim was erroneous.
Doctrine of the defendant solely for that reason.