절도등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.
except that this shall not apply.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant C) and Defendant C cannot be deemed to have conspireded with, or dolusently committed the instant crime with, the commission of theft with the Defendant c, but the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the instant crime. In so determining, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending of the legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, confiscation, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year and six months, one year and six months, and one year and six months), which the lower court
B. Each of the above punishments imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A and B is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Defendant C also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and convicted Defendant C of the facts charged in relation to Defendant C, while explaining detailed circumstances as stated in its reasoning.
Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept Defendant C’s allegation of mistake of facts.
B. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A and B are not only organized and sealed, but also their social harm and injury need to be strict. The Defendants’ act of collecting and delivering cash, which is essential for the crime of Bosing, is an act of implementation that is not easy to impose liability, and the victim Q and AB’s damage has not been recovered, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, it appears that Defendant A and B had the attitude of recognizing and opposing their mistakes, and the economic benefits that the Defendants directly acquired are not larger than the amount of damage.