beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B arising from brokerage of the purchase and sale of phiphones.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment of the lower court [the Defendants A: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months; additional collection of 3210,000 won; Defendant B: the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the act of arranging the sale and purchase of phiphonephones; imprisonment for a period of eight months; and imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaon) due to the administration of phiphones; and
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (Defendant A) and the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the Defendant could have aided and abetted the Defendant to commit the act of fraud as stated in this part of the charges, the court below’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle as to Defendant A's aiding and abetting fraud
A. The criminal facts of the facts charged [the reasons for multiple judgments] are as indicated in the “2019 Highest 2714 (Defendant A)”
B. The lower court determined that the facts charged of this case was based on the following: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving a proposal from a person who was unaware of his name, expressed that he had been able to recognize the fact that he was involved in the fraudulent act, such as singing, etc., and had been able to help him; (b) the Defendant had consistently failed to know from the investigative officer to the court that the AM account was used for the fraud of singing, etc.; (c) however, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the AM account was used for the fraud of singing, etc.; (d) provided that “the Defendant would receive and withdraw money from the passbook to the passbook for the reduction of or exemption from taxes of alcoholic beverages companies,” and argued that the Defendant was only to have withdrawn and delivered the money paid to AM account according to the direction, and that the Defendant and the person who