beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence related to mistake of facts (the acquittal part on occupational embezzlement), the court below found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged but found the Defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged, and found the Defendant not guilty on the part of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. 2) The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the one-year suspended sentence of one year imprisonment and two years suspended sentence) is too
B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Examining the reasoning of the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake in light of relevant evidence and the record, the court below was just in holding the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the monetary amount indicated in the crime sight table (2) cannot be rejected to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the possibility of payment by the defendant with B's explicit or implied consent according to the monetary transaction with D (the state). Even if it is based on all the proof of the prosecutor, including the court below, even if it is based on all the proof of the defendant's embezzlement, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
B. Determination of unfair sentencing by both parties on the grounds of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing criteria, etc. in the course of the first instance sentencing hearing, or newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.