beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1, 5, and 6 in the holding of the court below, and Nos. 2, 3, 4.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant did not know that Q and R obtained a corporation called "AE" which used the crime of fraud against the victim in Q and Q and Q to commit the fraud against the victim, and there was no conspiracy or participation in the crime of fraud against the victim AM and Q. 2) Each of these frauds committed each of these frauds by Q and Q (Article 6-B, Paragraph (c) of the first instance judgment). The Defendant consented to the use of the name of "AE" in the name of the victim, the passbook, and the storage of goods, and there was no conspiracy or participation in the above crime.
B. When taking into account the various circumstances on the defendant of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the court below (the sentence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 in the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and crimes Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment of the court below is ex officio prior to the defendant's decision on the grounds for appeal. 2) The court below held that "the defendant subscribed to six portable telephones in the name of the victim company (hereinafter "the defendant company") and did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 2,378,260, and did not pay an amount equivalent to the above usage fees to the above damaged company and let the above users acquire property benefits equivalent to the above amount without obtaining permission from G. The court below's decision 1-C. that "
Recognizing the charge of fraud in the port, the part concerning the first, fifth, and sixth crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be reversed, because it was found that the applicable provisions of law were guilty, but the omission of the statement in Article 347(2) of the Criminal
3. On the other hand, the prosecutor.