beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. When a misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) cell phone subscribers to the victim mobile phone (hereinafter “victims”) maintain their names for three months, the victim mobile phone operators (hereinafter “victims companies”) shall not recover subsidies from the opening of the mobile phone, and shall recover subsidies if they are not maintained, and the victim companies shall actually receive or receive the unpaid communications fees from the victim’s subscribers. In light of the fact that the victim companies intend to receive or receive the unpaid communications fees, Defendant A shall not be deemed to have obtained the subsidies by deceiving the victim companies.
Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the part that Defendant A acquired subsidies from the victim company is not guilty.
B. The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the defendants and the prosecutor) is too heavy or unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim company gains profits from the service charges that continued to use and paid mobile communications services for the 2 and 3-year contract period. The victim company paid subsidies equivalent to 50% of the delivery price of mobile phone devices to the sales store and let the sales store lower the price of the mobile phone devices so as to attract more subscribers. Meanwhile, the victim company explicitly prohibits the sales store to enter into a subscription contract with the subscriber for the purpose of the mobile phone loan not for normal use, but for the purpose of the mobile phone loan. If the defendants knew of the fact that the mobile phone loan was made as stated in the facts charged in this case, the victim company did not pay the defendants a subsidy for opening the mobile phone.