사기등
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The respective punishment of Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the additional collection) of the lower judgment is unreasonable.
B. Defendant CD 1) The surcharge that the lower court ordered the Defendant to mistake the fact was calculated in excess of the Defendant’s actual benefit amount.
2) The punishment of the original decision (six months of imprisonment) on the second instance of sentencing is too unreasonable.
(c)
The first original adjudication decision against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and prosecutor, the judgment ex officio against the defendant A is examined ex officio.
As to the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and the two appeals cases were tried by this court. Each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below in the second and second instances cannot be maintained.
3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant CD’s assertion of mistake, A used the Defendant three times from March 15, 2015 to the 20th day of the same month, one seven million won out of the total amount of KRW 3873,000,000, which was received from CI for solicitation.
such fact as has been remitted to a bank account in the name of CN.
The defendant asserts that he received the above 2 million won from A, but he remitted the above 17 million won from an investigative agency to this court to the defendant under the pretext of solicitation.
The transfer of the above 2 million won has been consistently stated, and the money has been continuously made within the nearest period of 15 million won that the defendant has received in the name of solicitation, and the defendant's assertion has been made with A except for the defendant's assertion.