beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A, B, and C’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (2018 highest 3843 fraud), Defendant A and B acknowledged the fact that Defendant B introduced P andO to Defendant A via Defendant A. However, Defendant B, and A knew that P andO were in the workplace and did not know of the fact that Defendant A and B committed a fraudulent act under the same law as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, since they knew that P andO were in the workplace, they did not constitute a crime of fraud.
2) Defendant C: (a) received P andO through Defendant A and B; and (b) committed some of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment. However, there was no participation in the fraud of a real estate purchase fund in the name of P, fraud of a deposit on a deposit basis using real estate in the name of P, fraud of a deposit on a deposit basis using real estate in the name of P, fraud of a credit card bank in the name of
Defendant
The crime of fraud is not established against Defendant C with respect to the crime of fraud other than the part directly participated by C.
B. Defendant D’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the fact that Defendant A and Defendant C committed an act related to lending (the fact that Defendant A, B, and C violated the Telecommunications Business Act), and there was no fact that Defendants A, B, and C conspired to commit a crime of fraud or participated in a fraud, and there was no fact that the chip was delivered to the cell phone in the name of P.
(c)
Sentencing (2018 Highest 3193, 3843) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (3 years of imprisonment for Defendant C, Defendant A, B, and D: two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A.
The crime of violating the Telecommunications Business Act of the 2017 High Order 3193 decided in the lower judgment is committed around November 2015, and the crime of fraud in the same case is committed on August 30, 2016, and the crime of fraud in the 2017 High Order 3843 decided in the lower judgment is committed on November 27, 2015 and February 4, 2016.