beta
Text
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant A, B, C, and E and the part on the additional collection of Defendant G shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. Defendant A
(a) The first deliberation penalty (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable;
B. In light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal conduct in the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the circumstance where the Defendant committed an additional illegal act in the course of performing the instant business, and the equity with similar cases, the “reason for sentencing” column of the first instance judgment seems to be somewhat unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case.
2. Defendant B
A. In light of the following, the summary of the grounds for appeal (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the first instance court 2/B / [B] The judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles, even though a considerable portion of the previous part cannot be regarded as a violation of the law of defense.
Nos. 47, 56, and 74 in the list of the above crimes were requested by the clients, but each clients did not pay the loans and received the commission from the Defendant on behalf of the clients that they did not pay the loans.
Now we cannot see (Ⅰ), Nos. 116, 117, written in the list of crimes, 116, and 117, rather than the client's application for personal rehabilitation, and the client requested a pure loan on behalf of the defendant (Ⅱ), and the part as indicated in the list of crimes is limited to the lending of the defendant's name (Ⅲ), and the part as indicated in the list of crimes is limited to the lending of BX to use the defendant's name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 26,27, 40, 67, 106, 113, 115, 121, 123, and 126, which was written in the list of crimes, which was written in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the client's request was revoked, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amount of penalty No. 22, 222, 69, 70, and 72.