beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the guilty portion of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding the fact that K sold crypphones to E by means of the account in the name of the Defendant’s father, and even though the Defendant did not sell crypphones to E, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, and (2) even if not, the sentence of the lower court (one year and two months and additional collection) that sentenced the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. As to the acquittal portion of the prosecutor’s judgment, according to the E’s statement, this part of the facts charged can be admitted as well as the charges on two occasions, such as the five convictions for the sale of phiphones. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion
2. On the grounds for appeal by the defendant
A. (1) As to the mistake of fact, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, on the following grounds: (a) as to the circumstance in which each of the evidence as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment and the following circumstances are revealed; and (b) in particular, E purchased phiphones from the Defendant on five occasions after March 7, 2015 in an investigative agency and a court of the lower judgment, as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, sold phiphones by means of telephone conversations around the first half of December 2014, and around January 2015.
Although the defendant attempted to communicate with the "Isn't know" in 3, there was no contact with the defendant, and the defendant purchased the penphone by telephone.
As the statement is clearly and consistently stated, there is credibility because it is impossible to find any particular contradiction or question about the contents of the statement, and E considered it to the extent that the defendant plays a role of supplying E by seeking philopon from ar to ar in the court of original instance.
While making a statement, there is no knowledge of who is the person who supplies a philopon to the defendant, nor there is a little talk or a direct talk about it.
“.....”