The judgment below

The remainder, other than the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for one year,

The lower court dismissed the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation of the lower court.

An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the part dismissing the application for compensation in the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope of the trial in this court.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant A’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) was not an employee in charge of simple accounting affairs of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), but there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime. Defendant B did not know the progress of the solar power plant business, and there was no intention to commit fraud. Thus, Defendant B did not have a criminal intent to commit fraud.

2) The Defendants did not have any statement to the victim C as stated in this part of the facts charged.

In addition, for the performance of the instant contract, the Defendants leased the land with the burden of KRW 85 million, and paid expenses for E employee pay, survey costs, and other service costs, etc. totaling at least KRW 100 million. However, the Defendants did not obtain permission for development as they did not pay actual expenses, such as environmental impact assessment costs agreed upon by the victims C, and therefore, the Defendants did not deceiving the victims C and did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

3) Even if the Defendants’ deception is recognized, the victim C entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff on the R with the solar power plant expert, and confirmed all the authorization documents, such as the application documents for permission for development activities. Therefore, the victim C erred by the Defendant’s deception.

It is difficult to see the Defendants’ deception and the victim C’s dispositive act.

4) Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged is convicted.