컴퓨터등사용사기등
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.
1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the defendant merely believed that he/she was aware of C's speech that he/she obtained permission from the account holder and did not think that he/she stolen or arbitrarily transferred the remaining money). The judgment of this court on February 2, 199.
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the Defendant: (a) made a corporation, not a corporation normally established by C at an investigative agency; (b) made it possible for C to open the account of the corporation or act as an agent for business registration; (c) made it doubtful that such fake account would be used for loan fraud crimes, etc. even if there is any suspicion (i.e., 392, 393 pages of investigation records); and (d) considered C’s usual behavior, etc., it was thought that C would have been related to the loan fraud group (i.e., 525 pages of investigation records). However, at the time of the instant crime, C’s decision was made on the ground that it may not be said C’s money, such as making the withdrawal of money with a large amount of C at the time of the instant crime.
In light of the fact that C separately kept one cash card among two cash cards issued by C through Defendant, there was doubt that C has to deduct the money of a future loan fraud organization.
(55 pages of investigation records) Also, according to these statements, it is sufficient to judge that the Defendant did not have any relation even in the occurrence of any consequence as a loan fraud or larceny, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime (no evidence exists to deem that the instant crime was forced by C, and as long as the Defendant directly conducted cash withdrawal or account transfer by committing a secret solicitation relationship with C, the Defendant cannot be exempted from co-principal liability). Accordingly, each of the above arguments by the Defendant disputing this point cannot be accepted.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant was convicted of a suspended sentence for fraud, and the suspended sentence.