beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (the part not guilty against Defendant A) recognized that the Defendant was involved in each crime stated in the facts charged that the lower court acquitted on the part of the Defendant on the important location in Bosing organization, but the lower court did not prove that the facts of such participation were insufficient.
In light of the fact that the defendant was not guilty, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Illegal sentencing (for Defendant A), the sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (for Defendant A) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, Defendant B: imprisonment of two and half years, Defendant C: imprisonment of four months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court, based on each evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found that Defendant A had been considerably involved in the instant Bosing Organization, but, based on each of the above evidence, the lower court specifically participated in each of the crimes indicated in the facts charged regarding Defendant A’s fraud and attack, or participated in the organization’s overall operation.
It is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and found Defendant A not guilty of the facts charged regarding Defendant A’s fraud and attack.
In light of the evidence examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.
B. The prosecutor against Defendant A and the judgment on the above Defendant’s unfair assertion of sentencing are erroneous and contradictory to the fact that Defendant A violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and is punished for a case different from this case.