beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the defendant A, B, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (based on fraud), and the summary of the victim AD’s argument, and the indictment, the Defendant’s deception is an essential element of the secondary medicine similar to that of the secondary medicine that could not be used as food additives in the food raw materials of “A” and that the Defendant could not manufacture food because it contains any similar composition of the secondary medicine similar to that of the secondary medicine that could not be used as food additives. However, even though the Defendant knew of such fact, the Defendant made a false statement that there was no problem in manufacturing the food as the above raw materials.
In this regard, the court below did not put a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's guarantee of the defendant's right of defense, and completely deleted the contents of the similar composition of the partially similar composition of the partially similar composition of the partially similar composition of the partially similar composition of the criminal facts. This is not to clarify what the deceptive act is, but to infringe the defendant's right of defense
At the time of May 16, 2013, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the “A” or “A”’s raw materials include the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use of the non-use
In this case, the defendant, by deceiving AD, sold AA to the victim company and acquired the price by fraud.
subsection (b) of this section.
Although the court below found the defendant guilty of fraud, there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this part of the judgment of the court below.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one and half years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendants B and F Co., Ltd. (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended execution, etc.) that the lower court sentenced to the above Defendants.