beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.
The crime of Nos. 2 and 4 of the judgment of the defendant is the same.
Reasons
1. On May 2013, the lower court sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against E, among the facts charged against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Articles 2, 4-B, 2, 1, 3, and 4-B as to the remaining facts charged.
As to the judgment of the court below, the defendant appealed against the conviction portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below of this case (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against E around May 2013) is separated by the prosecutor's failure to appeal against it, and thus, the object of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the judgment of the court below (including the part of the guilty in relation to the crime with the part of the crime)
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Nos. 1, 3 and 4-B as stated in the judgment below, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 2 and 4) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
3. The Defendant’s crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a crime committed on November 18, 201, which was committed in the course of trial on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in the case of some of the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (4) of the same Article, and committed without being familiar with the suspension period in the case of Articles 1, 3 and 4(b). The Defendant committed a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act without being informed of the suspension period in the case of a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, on September 8, 2011. The Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended sentence for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The judgment became final and conclusive on November 18, 2011.