사기등
The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants and the second judgment shall be reversed in its entirety.
Defendant
B Imprisonment for three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In collusion with A, etc., the Defendant did not commit each fraud listed in the [Attachment 3 and 4] list of crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance.
B. The Defendants asserted that the punishment of the lower judgment (the first instance judgment: Defendant B-3 years of imprisonment and confiscation; Defendant A-1 year and six months of imprisonment; Defendant A-6 months of imprisonment and confiscation; Defendant A-6 months of imprisonment, Defendant A-8 months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower judgment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.
First of all, the defendants appealed against the judgment of the court below, and each of the offenses against the defendants constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
3. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court also argued in the same manner, and the first instance court determined that this part of the facts charged was guilty by taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.
In full view of the circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, namely, each fraud committed in the No. 3 and No. 4 of the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the court below was conducted through the group hosting in which the Defendants B, A, and the deceased participated, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and acceptable, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just.