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.

, however, the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below guilty is a case where the mistake of fact has affected the judgment.

In addition, the sentence prescribed by the court of the court below (2 years of suspended execution of defendant A's imprisonment for 8 months, 80 hours of community service order; 2 years of suspended execution of defendant B's imprisonment for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

The above punishment against the prosecutor defendants is too uneasy and unfair.

Judgment

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the prosecutor sufficiently proven the case.

The decision is judged.

It is just and just that the court of the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case as stated in its holding.

The Defendants’ assertion that there was a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below is not accepted.

Defendant

The defendant's liability for the sentencing of A is not against the defendant's crime liability.

The F did not sufficiently recover the damage.

Since there are a number of criminal records, the possibility of recidivism is also likely.

However, the defendant has no criminal records of the same offense.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfasible and thus, the amount of the punishment is unreasonable (the allegation by the Defendant A that the punishment is too excessive is without merit). Whether the Defendant’s liability for sentencing with respect to the Defendant B is unreasonable or unreasonable is not easy.

Many criminal records are criminal records.

On the other hand, the victim J did not punish Defendant B.

Although the same criminal record is a fine of 1,500,000 won in fraud in 2006, it has been long ago.

The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

The judgment below

As a result, it is possible to consider the sentencing in particular.