beta
Text
Defendant
The judgment of the court below against C and D shall reverse the part of the judgment excluding the compensation order.
Defendant
C. 3 years of imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime is inferior; (b) the extent of damage is significant; (c) most damage was not recovered; (d) the possibility of future recovery is rare; and (e) the personal information of the victims may be abused for crimes such as singing, drinking, etc.; and (e) the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (or sentence of the Defendants A: 1 year of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; 1 year of probation; 1 year of probation; 80 hours of social service; 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor; and 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor).
B. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant B’s 2012 Highest 6713 case), Defendant B merely lent the name of the Kim Sea Center to the effect that it would raise the credit rating if it intends to obtain a loan with the full prevention of a mobile phone fraud case. Although there was no fact that Defendant B had opened a mobile phone at the M head office, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged, the sentence of the court below against the above Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the circumstance and present situation where Defendant B caused the instant crime, etc.
C. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts only introduced AD, an employee of L, to obtain a loan. Although Defendant C did not have committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A, B, and L, the judgment of the court below which recognized that Defendant C conspiredd with the above accomplices to commit the instant crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Even if Defendant C was guilty of the instant crime, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.