beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 2,500,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant D1’s mistake of fact delegated the temporary use of access media for three days in the course of the employee registration for employment, and the down payment or KRW 50,000 won per day is not a consideration for the lending of access media.
Therefore, Defendant D did not lend the access media while promising to make a compensation.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant D (the penalty amounting to KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendants (for defendant A: 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service and confiscation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service and confiscation, 2 years of probation, 30 hours of confiscation and confiscation, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of probation in October, 10, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service and confiscation, 4, 5, 2.5 million won of each fine) is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. Defendant D1) The ex officio reversal prosecutor applied the provision applicable to the facts charged against Defendant D in the trial of the court below to “Article 49 subparag. 4 subparag. 1 and Article 6 subparag. 3 subparag. 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” as “Article 49 subparag. 2 and Article 6 subparag. 3 subparag. 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act,” and applied for permission to change the facts charged as “criminal facts” under the facts charged, and since this court permitted it and changed it, the part on Defendant D among the judgment below cannot be maintained further.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, Defendant D’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, according to the Kakao Stockholm conversation between Defendant D and Defendant D at the time of Defendant D’s non-existence of name, the person in charge of the name in question is the Defendant D’s work.