beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the case No. 835 of the Highest 835 of the 2016 and the case No. 1354 of the Highest 1354 of the Highest 2016.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the fact-misunderstanding of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not avoid committing the said fraud in relation to the fact that the Defendant committed the said fraud. As to the fact that: (a) the [Attachment 2016 Highest 1354 [Attachment 2016 Highest 1354] fraud in the crime sight table.
B. The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (2016 order 835 cases, 2016 order 1354 cases, attached Form 1354 order order 2016 order 1354 cases, 6 months order 2016 order 150 order 2016 order 1514 order 156 months order 2016 order 2016 order 156 months order 201) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, according to the statement of the financial information reply (No. 1), A, the name of the account (NH Nonghyup ED) in which the victimized person deposited the amount of damage in this part of the facts charged, appears to be EE, and this appears to be the above account due to the Defendant’s date of birth (EF). This seems to be not to be the account opened by the Defendant. The fact that M’s written statement, the cell phone text closure and the account transfer evidence were sent by the victim M in contact with the person using the above “A” account with the cell phone text, and that the victim M deposited the amount of damage. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor.
Therefore, this part of the facts charged is objectively proven without reasonable doubt.
Although this part of the facts charged cannot be seen, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake as to this point is with merit.
B. As to the part of the judgment below regarding the crime of 2016 order 835 case, 2016 order order 1354 case, Doz. 1354 case, Doz. Doz. -2016 order - Doz. 1354 case, and 2016 order 1514 order order, the judgment of the court below is reversed.