beta
Text
The defendant case among the judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
Defendant
B shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since Defendant A (1) was in the position of securing a restaurant operation right until August 2010 by mistake of facts or incomplete hearing, it is difficult to deem that there was a deception against the victim M, T, A, and AI.
(2) In light of the fact that considerable damage recovery was made to the victims of unfair sentencing, the first instance court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are believed to have the intent and ability of Defendant A to resolve the problem of personnel management of the victim AI or the problem of securing the right to operate the restaurant, and thus there was no intention to commit fraud against the victim, and there was no intention to commit deception against Defendant A and the victim AI.
(2) The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by this court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or incomplete hearing with respect to Defendant A: (i) At the time of the instant case, Defendant A had friendship, such as U department store V president and BI high school president, W Group X president and G president, known to the investigation agency, but did not have the ability to administer G employee restaurant or to accept a personnel solicitation, and (ii) Defendant A stated to the effect that it was possible to secure the right to operate the above restaurant with its own ability before August 2010. However, the first instance court led Defendant A to the entire confession of the instant crime in the instant case, and had the ability to do so before the examination of the witness in the first instance court. However, the personnel solicitation or the instant case was made at the time of the instant solicitation.