beta
Text
The judgment below
Defendant B, F, G, H, J, M, R, and Z, and Defendant I on April 8, 2012.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the acquittal portion against Defendant I, M, and R among the lower judgment), all of the facts charged against Defendant I, and M and the facts charged against Defendant R are found guilty.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The Defendants (1) did not find out that the Defendants (the Defendants F, G, J (limited to the part of oil), R (limited to the part of oil), Z), Defendant F, G, J, R, and Z had employed juveniles to harmful establishments, as stated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant F, G, J, and Z guilty of violating the Juvenile Protection Act, among the facts charged against Defendant R, and the facts charged against Defendant R, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) In light of the fact that Defendants B, H, and H both recognize and reflects all the crimes in the trial of the party, and that Defendant J’s punishment is heavy compared to other Defendants, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the said Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Ex officio determination (1) On April 8, 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant I, a prosecutor who violated the Juvenile Protection Act by April 8, 2012, applied for changes in the contents of the facts charged against Defendant I, which were found not guilty at the lower court, as stated in the following 3. of the facts charged against Defendant I: (a) the part regarding the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act by April 8, 2012; and (b) the same was changed by this court’s permission.
The judgment below
Among them, this part can not be maintained as it is.
In addition, with respect to the remaining criminal facts of which indictment has not been modified, that is, the prosecutor still asserts that there is a mistake of facts as to the crime of March 30, 2012 and the crime of April 7, 2012.