사기등
Of the judgment of the court below, each of the defendants A, B, and C (excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation order).
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
There is no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that Defendant D did not play a role in remitting funds to China.
Defendant
D In exchange for the currency of Defendant C, only knew Defendant A and B as the staff of Defendant C, and did not know that won currency transferred by Defendant C, A and B was a withdrawn fund due to Bophishing crimes.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted Defendant D of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles against the rules of evidence.
Defendant
BI (In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant BI’s defense counsel stated in the statement of grounds of appeal that mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and assertion of unreasonable sentencing, but only appealed on the date of trial of the party
However, since it is unclear whether to withdraw the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, it is possible to judge the above argument.
Defendant
BI directly opened a deposit passbook to be used for the business of Bitcoin or let another person open it, and only received a prescribed fee, and there is no conspiracy to commit a crime of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment with a name-free winner, etc.
Defendant
BJ (In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant BJ on February 2018, or
3. Defendant BH heard that “the president operating the game company requires the passbook to reduce taxes” from Defendant BH, and only he collected and delivered the passbook.
Defendant
The judgment of the court below of the second instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the establishment of joint principal offenders, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal offenders.
Defendant A of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B: 1.