사기등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Defendant
B.
1. According to the records on Defendant B’s appeal, Defendant B did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date on which he/she was served with the notification of receipt of the notification of receipt of the trial records on November 13, 2018, and the petition of appeal does not state the grounds for appeal, and the lower court’s judgment can not be found even if it was examined.
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s appeal
A. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor, the name of the crime of larceny against Defendant A (the first instance court 2018Kadan3623) among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A was examined by the Prosecutor, and the name of the crime of larceny against Defendant A (the first instance court 2018Kadan3623) is “Fraud by use of computer, etc.” from “thief”, and Articles 329 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act are “Articles 347-2 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 329 of the Criminal Act”, and the facts charged are stated in the facts charged as “B. Fraud by use of computer, etc. and embezzlement,” and this court
3. Where an appeal is filed against a conviction on the part of the compensation order case, the confirmation of the compensation order is interrupted, and the case is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). According to the records, the court below found the fact that the applicant received four million won out of the amount of damage from the Defendant B and agreed on the fact (Article 213-215 of the trial record). Thus, the existence or scope of the Defendants’ liability to compensate against the applicant constitutes a case where the compensation order cannot be issued due to
4. According to the conclusion, Defendant B’s appeal should be dismissed by decision in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.