beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case in collusion with D et al., although the defendants could not be seen as deceiving the victims.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one and half years of imprisonment for each of the Defendant A, B, and one year of imprisonment for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact-finding, the Defendants were able to take part in the crime of this case after hearing the statements that the Defendants would be able to withdraw money from D, which is the form and pattern D and A, and that they would be able to take part in the crime of this case. The Defendants did not ask D to confirm whether the site of the instant case existed. Defendant C was able to say that the money from D was the money received as a crime of fraud on the ground that the money from D was not the money related to the sports soil. (No. 934 pages of the investigation record) Defendant C was said to be the money received as a crime of fraud (No. 934 pages of the investigation record). The Defendants did not confirm who received instructions from D and received instructions from AG or telephone conversations to perform the duty of withdrawal, and received the payment for the withdrawal from D without confirming who was aware of the above fact-finding, and the Defendants were aware of all the facts charged in this case at the lower court. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts is unreasonable.
B. The crime of this case’s unfair sentencing is a situation in which the crime of this case’s crime of unfair sentencing was committed in a planned and organized manner against many and unspecified persons, with a great harm to society, and the nature of the crime was bad, and the Defendants’ crime did not withdraw the amount of damage to Bophishing, and the role of the Defendants did not disappear, and the number of times of the crime was committed, and the criminal injury was not recovered.
However, the Defendants committed the instant crime.