The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable for the lower court’s punishment of KRW 500,00,000.

B. Although Defendant B (the misunderstanding of facts/du-type unjust) requested Defendant A to be exempted from an administrative fine for violating the law, Defendant A could not be deemed to have instigated Defendant A to commit the crime, since Defendant A failed to anticipate the forgery of the official document for the exemption from the administrative fine, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

Dob. The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, pursuant to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the facts constituting a crime, summary of evidence, and the application of the law must be clearly indicated in the grounds for the judgment of conviction. Thus, in a case where any one of the grounds for the judgment of conviction was omitted in whole in the grounds for the judgment while the judgment of conviction was rendered, it constitutes a violation of the law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). According to the records, the court below declared a conviction against Defendant A and omitted the facts constituting a crime against Defendant A among the grounds for the judgment, and in this respect,

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and of unreasonable sentencing still are subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below (the judgment of the court below is reversed as to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the punishment is again imposed after oral argument, and it is not separately determined).

Defendant

B의 항소이유에 대한 판단 ⑴사실오인 ㈎ 원심의 판단 원심은, ① 일단 주차위반스티커가 발부되면 과태료를...