beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed against the defendant A and the prosecutor B are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In fact, the Defendant did not forge the “G shopping mall Operation Agency Agreement” as stated in the facts charged on 1.1., and did not know that it was forged, and thus, the Defendant cannot be said to exercise it against M and acquire the money from it.
Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (defendant B), although it can be recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to forge the “Agreement on the Agency for the Operation of G shopping mall,” and acquired money by using it to M, the court below acquitted Defendant B, and recognized this as Defendant A’s sole criminal act. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake, the fact that the Defendant forged “G shopping mall operation agency agreement”, which is a private document, and presented it to M, and obtained by deception KRW 200 million can be fully recognized.
Defendant
A’s above assertion is without merit.
B. Reviewing all the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of this case, including Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, family environment, background and result of the instant crime, and the situation after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too vague, in so far as it is deemed that there is no penance while denying the judgment of the crime regarding Defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing, the crime committed by actively deceiving the victim by forging a private document is inferior, the amount of damage was not recovered at all, even though it was a large amount of damage, and the injury was re-offending despite the previous conviction of the same crime.