beta
Text
The guilty part of the judgment of the first instance is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
The judgment of the court of first instance is not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor’s (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part) ① As to the fraud of the sales commission among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant and the victim H and I (hereinafter simply referred to as the “victims”) are in a partnership business relationship, the act of notifying the victims of the fact to take part of the sales commission in order to take part of the sales commission through an agreement on the side with the exercise of the sales unit, constitutes deception, and accordingly, the act of notifying the victims of the fact to take part of the sales commission. Accordingly, the act of receiving money in the name of the sales commission in excess of the actual amount from the victims constitutes fraud. However, the first instance court which acquitted the victims of this error by misapprehending the legal principles
② As to the embezzlement of the lease deposit received from AL as to subparagraph 01 of the facts charged in the instant case, and embezzlement of the purchase price received from SS as to subparagraph 03 of the underground, the first instance court which acquitted the Defendant of this error by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, since the Defendant was aware of the ground 01 and underground 03 as the business property of the Defendant and the victims, and each lease deposit and the purchase price received by the Defendant according to the lease contract and sales contract as to subparagraph 01 and underground 03 are deemed to constitute a business property between the Defendant and the victims. Thus, the Defendant’s voluntary consumption of each of them should constitute embezzlement.
B. The sentencing of the first instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the accused is too unhued and unfair.
B. As to the fraud regarding (i) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding (ii) fraud of KRW 20 million in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant borrowed the above money from the victims, but this is not a fund.