Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for one year and six months, for defendant C, for eight months and for eight months.

A. Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant D1 had conspiredd with the upper Defendant to gambles by using technology, such as changing a diaphone, etc. However, there is no fact that the Defendants provided the victim with drinking water, etc. containing a mematic disorder, which is a local mental medicine.

Nevertheless, the lower court obtained money and valuables from the damaged person by gambling through the process of providing the victim with drinking water, etc. containing phiphones, etc.

Since the court below recognized the facts, it erred by mistake.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (six months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C, and ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant D) are too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B B’s misunderstanding of the facts, but there is no fact that Defendant B conspiredd with the upper Defendants for gambling.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of receiving money and valuables from the injured party in collusion with Defendant B, thereby erroneous in the judgment of the court below.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On October 20, 2015, Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant D’s assertion 1) bear the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial on or around October 20, 2015, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the recognition of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the Defendant (Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5662 Decided December 24, 2002; 2006.)