beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the lower court: Defendant B and C: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and March, one year and six months, and one year and six months, respectively, the victim 1, 15, and 16 of the list of crimes alleged to be erroneous in the facts of Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, or improper sentencing). The victim is not the victim directly phoneed by the Defendant, but the victim is not the victim by the team in which the Defendant participated.
Defendant did not participate in the crime of Nos. 11, 15, and 16.
The punishment of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for the sentencing.
Defendant
C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor (unfair sentencing against the Defendants) and the lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
Meanwhile, Defendant B renounced the appeal on August 11, 2017.
Defendant
With respect to the fraud of Defendant A’s crime list (1) 11,15, and 16 on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor for the determination of the facts as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, there was no room for reasonable deliberation that Defendant A directly or by the team in which Defendant A participated was committed.
It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
The reasons are as follows.
Defendant
A was affiliated with the I Team and used different offices for different teams from the Defendants in the same building during the participation period (Evidence Records 117, 122, 138, 200, 222, 462-463, 486). On the other hand, Defendant C was affiliated with the J Team to which the co-offender belongs (Evidence Records 563, 704, 585, 585, 813, 15, 16, 16, and 2). However, each of the frauds of Defendant C is identical to each of the frauds of Defendant C, 3.
In addition, Defendant A’s crime sight table (1) Nos. 11 and 15 of the victim Nos. 2U of 11 was received by BV calls (Evidence Nos. 266 of the evidence record, No. 8,12 of the victim list). BV calls are three times the Defendant C’s crime sight table (3).