beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the crime No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A’s judgment Nos. 1, 1.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, Defendants 1 thought that the Defendants could return the lease deposit at the time of conclusion of each lease agreement under Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and concluded a lease agreement and received the deposit for lease, and the Defendants deceiving the victims or deceiving the Defendants.
However, the lower court found all of the charges guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to mistake of facts (the defense counsel’s written opinion, etc. submitted after the lapse of the time limit for filing an appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement of the grounds for appeal specified in the written reasons for appeal, and shall not be separately determined as to the assertion not stated in the written reasons for appeal). 2) The sentencing of the lower court
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1, the Defendants, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, could sufficiently recognize the fact that they concluded a lease agreement and received the deposit for lease by deceiving the lessee with respect to the lease agreement concluded from around September 2010 to November 201, as stated in this part of the facts charged, but the lower court acquitted the Defendants of all of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s sentencing against the illegal Defendants is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts reveals its legal doctrine as stated in its reasoning, and, on the following grounds, convicted all of the facts charged.
A) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.
① Although the Defendants, their relatives, and the Defendants appear to own some real estate, they are either provided for a specific business or provided to the Defendants.