beta
Text
Defendant
Of the lower judgment against A, the remaining part of the lower judgment, excluding the part on the criminal facts No. 679 of the 2017 Highest 679.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In fact, Defendant A1 did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of the victim D with respect to 2017 Highest 679, but did not commit the crime of defraudation of the victim G, the amount of defraudation of the victim G is only KRW 40 million, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.
With regard to 2017 high group 771, there was no intention to acquire the victim L, and there was no fact that he arbitrarily affixed the L's seal impression to forge or use a forged document.
With regard to 2017 high group No. 1118, there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud against victim V, and with regard to 2017 high group No. 1336, there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud against victim BW, and there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud against AC.
With regard to 2017 high group 1461, there was no intention to acquire the victim AL, and there was no intention to obtain the victim AX in relation to 2017 high group 1939.
In 2017 Highest 2028, there was no intention to obtain fraud against victim BF, and on July 11, 2013, the amount of fraud fraud is not more than KRW 80 million.2) The punishment of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (6 months of imprisonment and 4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B 1) The Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the victim AX.
2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A (1) The Defendant argued that the grounds for appeal are almost the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case in detail.
Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there was an error of mistake of fact, contrary to what is alleged otherwise.
Since it is not recognized, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.
2) The judgment holding that the crime of this part of the criminal facts No. 679 of the High Order 2017 and the crime of this part is the same.