beta
Text
The judgment below
The acquittal portion on the fraud against the guilty part and F shall be reversed.
Nos. 1 and 1 of the judgment of the defendant.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crimes Nos. 1 through 3, and found the Defendant guilty of the crimes No. 1 and No. 2 as to the crimes of the first and the second crimes of the first and the second crimes of the first and the third crimes of the lower judgment, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the fraud regarding E, the fraud of the first and the second crimes of the third crimes of the lower judgment, the larceny of the first and the second policemen on August 2012, and the fraud
However, the Defendant appealed to the guilty portion of the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor appealed to the acquittal portion on the part of the lower judgment, and the Defendant appealed to the acquittal portion on the part of the guilty and the F, and, on August 2012, it became final and conclusive that the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal on the thief on the thief’s larceny. As such, the scope of the lower judgment is limited to the acquittal portion on the guilty portion and the F’s fraud.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment (the punishment No. 1 and No. 2 at the time of original adjudication: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and No. 3 in the judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) imposed by the court below is excessively unreasonable.
(B) The defendant explicitly withdraws his assertion of mistake of facts on the date of the first instance trial.
1) In light of the fact-finding (the pre-announcement of ex officio cancellation of the vehicle of this case concerning the fraud of F among the acquitted portion in the original trial) and the explanation about the transfer of the name is that the defendant should make the victim, while the defendant was unable to make consistent statements from the investigative agency to the original trial court on the grounds of the pre-announcement of ex officio cancellation, the victim is consistently stated, and in light of the sales contract place and the sales price, etc., the fact of deceiving the victim can be recognized, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this portion of the charges is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.