beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by both A and B and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the prosecutor’s statements, the statements of the co-defendant A and B, and the statements of related persons such as the victim, and the details of allowances prohibition, Defendant C also participated in the “lurged project” project in collusion with the co-defendant A and B, thereby receiving similar information and committing
may be appointed by a person.
Although co-defendants A, B, and C may be recognized, the lower court acquitted Defendant C, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in the part on Defendant C of the lower judgment.
B. Defendant A (1) merely received BB’s contribution by mistake of fact, and Defendant A did not have any knowledge about it, and Defendant A received similar money with respect to the investment of BA.
shall not be deemed to exist.
However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, there was an error of law by mistake in this part of the lower judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
B The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor that led to the proof of the facts charged against Defendant C (hereinafter in this paragraph “Defendant”) to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see and otherwise there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
A) - It is difficult to recognize whether the Defendant served as the head of Q Center - (1) it is recognized that the victims who were found in the B’s house due to the Defendant’s inclusion of households in the Defendant’s house and almost every day after leaving work at the Defendant’s house, together with the Defendant A and B.
However, at the time, the Defendant was trying to attract subscribers while running the multi-stage business called “B Q” business with B and BP, and is so detached.