beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) The Defendant did not participate in each of the crimes (B employee misrepresentation and fraud) specified in the attached Table of Crimes (2) among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below. 2) The Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant (2 years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. Prosecutor 1) Although it may be deemed that there was an intention and functional control over Defendant B’s joint processing and functional control over the fraud conduct listed in the separate sheet (1) Nos. 1 among the facts constituting an offense in mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s acquittal of this part is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) the Defendant was in the position of the team leader leader who educates other assistants as well as telephone counselors at the instant criminal organization; (b) the Defendant was staying in Y and was engaged in fraud at the same office while committing fraud by misrepresenting his employees; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the details and methods of the crime committed by misrepresentation of BB employees; and (d) the Defendant stated that “BB misrepresentation was misrepresented as BB agent or P agent when performing the BB fraud” upon being investigated by the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant was deemed to have been in the position of co-principal through functional control based on the intention of co-processing with D, telephone counselor, I, etc., and the intention of co-management and the intention of co-management.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant.