beta
Text
All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.
Reasons
The sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) against Defendant A by the prosecutor of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unfair because it is too uneasible.
Defendant
B In full view of the evidence that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had not been able to do so.
Although it can be seen, the court below acquitted the defendant about the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts.
Defendant
A (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.
Judgment
In a criminal trial on the prosecutor’s assertion of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate trial has the character as an ex post facto trial even though it belongs to the court, and the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., it is difficult for the first instance court to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely
The facts charged are affirmed and convicted.