beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1 was detained by Defendant B and C, and Defendant A borrowed money from E and F due to the need for agreement, and Defendant B and C can receive full payment of the money if released.
I think only that it does not have the intention of fraud.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) The instant fraud was committed by all Defendant C, and Defendant B did not have conspired or committed the instant crime with Defendant C.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the establishment of a crime of fraud through the defraudation of Defendant A shall be determined at the time of borrowing. However, as long as the Defendant does not confession, the subjective constituent elements of the crime of fraud shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction performance, etc., and the criminal intent is not definite intention, but not definite intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is comprehensively taken into account, and the following circumstances recognized by the court below, i.e., the victim E knows and C had been employed in B and C, and the Defendant A would pay a large amount of money if the Defendant was deducted from his detention.
The term "" refers to the following.
“A consistently made a statement to the effect that “” was consistently made, ② Defendant A, from the second trial date of the lower court to the first trial date of the first trial of the lower court, led to the confession of all the facts charged, and ③ Defendant A, at the time when Defendant A received money from E and F, was also suspected of misrepresenting Defendant B and C as his secretary, etc. to commit money.