beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to facts-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles 1), with respect to the evasion of compulsory execution by the Defendant (the part concerning the crime of oil), the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that conforms to the social rules, inasmuch as the Defendant received payments from the Defendant’s wife account to prevent the chain of bankruptcy by the customer, and paid the outstanding amounts to continuing the business, there was no intention or intent to evade compulsory execution.
B) As to the occupational embezzlement, the Defendant’s intent of embezzlement is not recognized, since he/she received a provisional payment from F in the form of a cash and borrowed money normally, and thus, he/she cannot be found to have obtained the intent of embezzlement. (2) The Defendant was in a state of economic failure due to excessive debts around April 2018, and the Defendant was not supplied by the victims or provided services for the purpose of promoting the expansion of the business and normalizing the business, and the Defendant did not receive the original payments or the service payments from the victims due to unexpected operational problems, and thus, the intent of defraudation is recognized.
B. Defendant 1: The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The prosecutor: the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The crime of evading a judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's evasion of compulsory execution is established when a person has a specific risk of being subject to compulsory execution, by concealing, destroying, falsely transferring property or bearing false debts. It does not necessarily lead to the result detrimental to the creditor, or an offender does not constitute an offense of evading compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do343, May 23, 1989; 94Do2056, Oct. 14, 1994).