beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A(1) of the crime committed in the judgment of mistake of facts, Defendant A’s 1’s virtual phone sales without compensation, and Defendant A did not receive money from Defendant A in the sense that Defendant A had provided a philopon with a philop and received money from Defendant I in the sense that it had been paid for the garlopon or an existing loan. However, the lower court accepted the facts charged and sentenced Defendant A guilty of the philop sales. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court consistently stated the following: (a) Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts: (b) the fact that Defendant A made 0.09 ghonon to I on September 4, 2012 and received KRW 1.80,000 from I; and (c) the Defendant’s assertion was rejected on the ground that: (a) the investigative agency consistently stated to the effect that “I was provided with a written phone for four times from Defendant A, and purchased KRW 0.09g on September 4, 2012 and received the remainder without compensation; (c) there was any objective circumstance that allows Defendant A and I to exchange money for reasons other than the cost of a written phone; and (b) there was no circumstance that I would make a false statement unfavorable to the Defendant.
However, if the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below is gathered, it cannot find any illegality in the process of fact-finding and determination as above. Thus, this part of the defendant A's assertion is without merit.
B. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A’s mistake is divided and reflected, and the volume of penphones sold or provided by Defendant A is not much convenient, and Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing.