사기등
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The fact that Defendant C was notified of the receipt of legitimate records of trial on April 9, 2018 and did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within 20 days from the receipt of the record of trial on April 9, 2018 is apparent in the record, and the petition of appeal does not contain any reason for appeal, and the grounds for ex officio investigation on the record may not be found (the above Defendant’s defense counsel asserted as the ground for appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts while submitting the summary of the statement of argument on May 9, 2018, but this is presented after the lapse of the period for submitting the statement of reason for appeal, which cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal, and ex officio examination is without merit). 2.
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (i) Defendant E’s fraud on May 30, 2016 by Defendant E, which was caused by Defendant E’s fraud on May 30, 2016; (ii) Defendant E did not construct a cryping in favor of the actual accident vehicle; and (iii) Defendant A issued a certificate of guarantee retroactively to Defendant A while being aware that the relevant vehicle was an accident vehicle; and (iii) Defendant A issued a certificate of guarantee on a continuous basis with Defendant A, even if Defendant A and B did not have a cryping in favor of the accident vehicle; and (iv) Defendant A had an intention to deceive Defendant E as if Defendant A and B had a cryping.
Although it is reasonable to see this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) Defendant A, C, and E’s fraud on August 24, 2016 stated that no certificate was delivered to Defendant C at the time of sale of the instant vehicle, stating that Q Q was a free-riding to the instant vehicle at the time of sale of the instant vehicle, and that the first receipt submitted by Defendant C to an investigative agency is indicated as luminous rather than luminous, and that the first receipt submitted by Defendant C is written as luminous, and the vehicle number and the class of the vehicle are written on the vehicle maintenance record card submitted by the said Defendant at the lower court, and the date of issuance of documents is not indicated.