beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) 1) Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts (Paragraph 1 of the original judgment) is the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the lower judgment as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.
) There was no fact that 2 million won was dry or 400,000 won was about to be dry, and further, the date, time, place (2:00 on March 9, 2019 from around 16:0 to around 17:00) and place (2:0 on March 9, 2019, E, hereinafter “E”) stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as indicated in the lower judgment.
There is no fact that he had stayed in the facts charged, and at the date and time stated in the facts charged, Defendant A is only called “A Q” (hereinafter referred to as “A Q”).
(B) Defendant B is located in Y BG (hereinafter “BH”).
The court below found the defendant B guilty of paragraph (1) of the crime as stated in the judgment below on the ground that there were multiple objective evidence supporting this. Thus, the court below found the defendant B guilty on the basis of only the statement of Eul without credibility against the objective evidence. 2) The defendant B did not intend to flee as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, although there was no fact that the defendant B attempted to flee as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment of the court below.
3) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable. (B) Each sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of imprisonment, 10 months of suspended sentence, Defendant B’s imprisonment, 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 160 hours of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.
A. Defendant A, on March 13, 2019, was elected by going to the election of the head of the nationwide East City Cooperative D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant election”), which was conducted on March 13, 2019.