beta
Text
The judgment below
All parts of the defendant A and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by imprisonment for defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the legal statements, etc. of the D and Z in relation to the mistake of facts, Defendant A (A) the lower court which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to believe the statement of D and Z because the charge was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, in collusion with D, hospitalized the Z in the hospital as if the Defendant was the Defendant and acquired by transfer of KRW 9,096,284 as insurance money, was committed, even though the Defendant conspired with D and acquired the Z as if he were the Defendant.
B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of Defendant CD and B’s legal statements, the lower court which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to believe that the facts charged that the Defendant conspired with D and obtained a total of KRW 11,082,615 in collusion with D and obtained a transfer of KRW 11,082,615 for the purpose of insurance proceeds are erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
C. Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts, but it is only asserted after the lapse of the period for filing the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it does not constitute grounds for appeal.
The punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed on the accused by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In relation to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts regarding the defendant A's crime of fraud, this paper examines whether Z was hospitalized in the name of the defendant in the hospital in the name of the defendant and there was a fact that the defendant was aware of, or admitted to, the process of claiming the insurance money by D, and the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the court below comprehensively adopted and examined the evidence. i.e., Z was h. at the office of D from 4 to 5 years prior to the court below and the court court court, and the defendant was h.D.