beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Seized evidence 1 to 8, 10 to 10.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the violation of the Telecommunications Business Act among the instant case No. 1) No. 2019 high-level 18, Defendant A was only a member of the U.S.I. chip, and he was aware of the Gway’s function, and there was no intention to make a false representation, such as changing the phone number.
B) As to embezzlement 2019Kadan2020, Defendant A sent a cash card to BI reliance on the end of BI to have the loan borrowed, and only withdrawn and used the card with the knowledge that the loan was deposited. Defendant A did not know that it was the amount of damage to the crime of Bohishing. Of the case of No. 2019Kadan4399, Defendant A did not have any intention to obtain the status as a custodian and any illegal acquisition. C) Defendant A did not have any 3 million won, which was deposited in the account under the name of AR on October 18, 2018, with respect to the crime of defraudation of 3 million won deposited in the account under the name of AR on October 18, 2018.
Defendant
A, on October 17, 2018, "S" was withdrawn from the account under the name of AP to withdraw KRW 3 million, and the escape was found at the wind, and at all, the fact of the crime was committed on October 18, 2018.
At the last time, AC received instructions from B and then withdrawn KRW 3 million deposited in the account in the name of AR.
2) From among seized articles for which the court below rendered confiscation against Defendant A, the court below erred in forfeiture No. 9 (BJ, hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”).
[3] The punishment of the lower court on Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable for Defendant A to be punished by imprisonment.
B. As to Defendant B’s violation of the Telecommunications Business Act among the instant cases No. 12019 high-class812, Defendant B was merely aware of the fact or misapprehension of the legal principle, which caused the Defendant A to put the USIM chips.