beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for six months, each of the defendants C.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentencing of Defendant A is too inappropriate.
B. Defendant C1) The lower court found Defendant C1 guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, although the Defendant conspired with the Defendant A that the price of the land was significantly misleading, the road would be opened, or the mountainous district would be permitted to be permitted, in collusion with the victims. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that Defendant C conspired with Defendant C to induce victims in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence, and that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by Defendant C in the lower judgment. The lower court's finding and determination of facts is just and acceptable.
As such, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
B. Strict punishment against the Defendants is necessary in light of the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime is not good in determining the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing; and (b) the Defendants did not agree with the victims up to the trial.
However, Defendant A’s mistake is divided, Defendant C is a primary offender who has no criminal history; Defendants C appears to have less than the amount entered in the crime; Defendant A already served imprisonment with labor for the relevant case; Defendant A already served for a crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the concurrent crimes for which judgment has been rendered after Article 37 of the Criminal Act should take account of equity in cases of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant A is a representative.