beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, A is the actual operator of Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) who is a truster of the instant land. As to the instant land for which ownership has been completed by a trust under the name of a third party in the name of registration, A has the ownership as well as the right to dispose of the instant land.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that A purchased the instant land from C on the ground that A actually has the authority to dispose of the instant land.
② According to a sales contract concluded with C, the Defendant only completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land and did not have a dispositive act during that process.
③ On May 2015, investors of Q expressed to the effect that Q would be able to normalize Q’s business when there is KRW 400 million in the gathering place, and the Defendant talked about the composition of the claim group and the preparation of money, but this was immediately no other fact that the Defendant had deceiving Q.
④ Defendant’s motion to resolve the issue of transfer of ownership of Qu’s land to investors A.
There is no evidence to support the commitment.
⑤ Since the Defendant paid the purchase price in a normal manner and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, he did not acquire pecuniary profits.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant.
According to evidence, the defendant on July 1, 2016.