beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the rejection thereof, shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B1) Fact misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles did not perform the project as expected and did not intend to obtain money from the beginning (F, AD, and AG fraud). The Defendant, not the lender, but signed at the request of the parties concerned (AJ frauds with respect to the Defendant’s money). The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim’s investment (AJ frauds with respect to G). The Defendant filed a complaint differently from the fact to receive the money invested by the victim (AM frauds with respect to the money invested). Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit deception and obtain money. The lower court recognized all the charges against the Defendant and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court, since the appellate court has the nature of ex post facto deliberation based on the inner part, but the ex post facto core elements are also included therein.
Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first deliberation and make an ex post facto determination, it is obvious that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was maintained as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules.