beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged against Defendant A of the facts charged against Defendant A of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, around October 201: ① confirmed G as the actual owner upon H’s request, and did not deceive the victim as the broker for a pre-sale contract; ② did not lead the loan of this part of the fraud (the crime No. 1-B) around December 2, 201; ③ on November 9, 201, the fact of fraud (the crime No. 2 of the original trial) was confirmed by H’s request and confirmed as the owner and mediated the pre-sale contract; ④ there was no intention of defraudation; ④ around May 14, 2012, there was no conspiracy with the victim as to the fact of fraud (the crime No. 3 of the original trial).
Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.
B. The sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for August, Defendant C: 1 year of suspended execution on June, and community service for 80 hours) declared by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.
C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants by the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court to comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, K in the relevant criminal case: (i) K is an I apartment 105 Dong 204; and (ii) Co-Defendant G is recognized as an owner in the form of I apartment 106 Dong 103, and 103, and the date when G and H were reported to G on September 7, 2011 (No. 1 title of investigation record No. 551); and (iii) Defendant and H were very close to the time of fraud around October 201.