beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.
k. A seized benz motor vehicle.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In the part E of the victim E (i.e., the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) (Fraud) (Article 1-B of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in the original judgment) (Article 2017Da128 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (Article 1-B of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) the Defendant placed the victim E on the security of high-priced goods, such as the view of the Defendant’s possession of approximately KRW 1 billion, and multimond, etc.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in misconception of facts in finding the victim E guilty of the charge of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud).
⑵ 절도의 점(원심 판시 범죄사실 2017고합128 사건의 제3항) 피고인은 원심 판시 범죄사실 2017고합128 사건의 제3항 기재와 같이 피해자 E 소유의 롤렉스 데이토나 시계를 절취한 사실이 없다.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts in finding guilty of the larceny charges against victims E.
Article 28(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant shall not have damaged the mobile phone owned by the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below (Article 28(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act).
Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts in finding guilty of the facts charged of property damage and damage against victims E.
B) Fraud against the victim AX (the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below 2017Gohap703) Defendant received money. The Defendant is a rien shampoo and rinse product (hereinafter “instant product”) to the extent that the Defendant received money.
(C) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) with respect to the victim CT. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the guilty charge of fraud against the victim AX.