beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year, and shall be sentenced to the first and second crimes.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant only transported petroleum and did not sell it; (b) the Defendant was supplied with regard to the second crime at the time of original adjudication; (c) the Defendant was considered to have received it from the L of the Victim’s Operation; and (d) E was thought to have supplied it to the Defendant by passing through the victim; (c) there was no intention to obtain fraud from the Defendant; (d) the Defendant introduced B to the P president with regard to the third crime at the time of original adjudication and did not know that the P president sold fake petroleum to B; and (e) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts, and even if not, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In light of the fact that F purchases via the Defendant for the first crime at the time of the original adjudication, and stated that the Defendant was not aware of the above transit supply station at all, U provided transit to the customer and that U has made a statement that the difference between the intermediate point was a kind of withstanding, it is difficult to accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion.
B. In light of the fact that around October 24, 2012, M from the investigative agency to the original trial court, the Defendant consistently stated that the Defendant promised to sell oil and pay the price thereof to himself/herself on the next day, and the J and U also made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was aware that the transit was owned by L, it is difficult to accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion.
C. At the time of the original adjudication, B is asked whether the defendant is a fake oil, regardless of whether it is a fake oil, with the proposal that B uses low oil from the defendant at an investigative agency.