beta
Text
[Defendant A, B, and D] Defendant A, B, and D and Prosecutor Defendant A and D are dismissed, respectively.
[Defendant C]
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts ① Defendant A 1-A and 1-D as stated in the judgment of the court below with respect to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the original judgment.
Only the media of access to the port was directly taken over.
The remainder of the access media indicated in the facts constituting the crime 1 as indicated in the judgment below (hereinafter “the access media of this case”) was transferred from Defendant B by the names in the name of “AS”, etc. introduced by Defendant A to Defendant B. During this process, Defendant A paid the cost of the access media instead of others or was at issue in the use of the access media, only made contact between the said “AS” side and the Defendant B.
② There is a fact that the Defendant was involved in fraud in the judgment of the court below with respect to the original judgment, but the above fraud was led overseas by the name-free persons, such as the name “AS”.
Defendant
A did not have a leading role, such as “management of cash withdrawal books,” “designation of an account to remit personal cash,” and “the receipt of cash from the withdrawn books,” etc.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A, who is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B and C (Defendant B and C 8 months) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
D1) Defendant D’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not assist Defendant A to take over each L’s access media in the name of each L as indicated in the lower judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) against Defendant D, who is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
(d)
The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant A and D by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.
2. We examine the judgment ex officio on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C.
According to the records, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment on November 10, 2016 with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Suwon Friwon, and the judgment on November 18, 2016 is rendered.