beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
2. Defendant B-.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The lower judgment that recognized the conspiracy of fraud to the extent that the Defendant was not directly involved in the withdrawal is unreasonable.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (6 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A
A. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.
At the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the person who withdraws from the indictment No. 15:24, Oct. 19, 2016, Oct. 2016, 2016, as of October 20, 2016, in the indictment No. 15:24, Oct. 24, 2016, and Oct. 14:47, 2016, to “A” changed from “A” to “the person who is not a person who is not a person who is in a name,” and this Court permitted this.
In addition, since the remaining parts were sentenced to a single sentence in relation to a single comprehensive crime or a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the entire part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A could not be maintained as it is.
The judgment below
Of the above, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. In the event that an appellate court intends to reverse a judgment of the first instance court after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment even though there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction in the process of the trial, there is a reasonable circumstance to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and that the first instance judgment of the fact-finding should not be reversed without permission without any such exceptional circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da1548, Apr. 1, 2017).