beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact that “2016No. 5373” was false (as to Defendant B’s conspiracy crime), Defendant A’s defense counsel stated “misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing” on the grounds of appeal on January 24, 2017, on the grounds of the reasons for appeal. On the first instance trial date, Defendant 1 asserted the same reasons for appeal. On March 28, 2017, the defense counsel’s written opinion presented on March 28, 2017, which was after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, alleged this part of the lower judgment as to the criminal facts.
Such grounds for appeal are not legitimate grounds for appeal, which have been filed after the expiration of the period for submission of the written reasons for appeal.
However, the reasons are as follows: ① A decision to permit the amendment of the Bill of Indictment was no longer maintained due to the previous decision to permit the amendment of the Bill of Indictment; ② The reasons are as follows: (a) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts of the same crime committed by Defendant B; and (b)
(1) The victims knew that the Defendants were in the position of mediating military payments contracts, and the victims deceiving the victims while demanding the funds. As such, the Defendants deceiving the victims.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, if the defendants used the funds with the consent of H that was delegated by J to use the street funds, and if the defendant invested not only the funds received from the victims but also the funds of the defendant to U, the defendant did not have any intention to obtain the fraud or to obtain the illegal acquisition.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts by recognizing the defendant's intent of deception, fraud, and illegal acquisition.
(2) Even if examining whether it constitutes embezzlement, the victims paid to the Defendants.