beta
Text
The judgment below
Each part of the crimes of Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the judgment shall be reversed.
The crimes of Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the judgment of the defendant are committed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to each of the crimes listed in the judgment No. 1 [1] [2017Dadan801] as to each of the crimes listed in the judgment No. 1 [2017Dadan801], Y, the Defendant’s wife, was to settle the bathing expenses at the Defendant’s request, and settled the bathing expenses at the victim’s B, there is no criminal intent to defraud 6,000 won, and there is no fact that the victim E stolen 30,000 won in cash. 2] as to the crime listed in the judgment No. 2 of the judgment [2017DaDa3110], there was no intention to inflict any special injury.
3) As to the crime No. 5 of the holding [2018 Height3012], the Defendant did not steals KRW 80,000,000 in cash of the victim N. B. The imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in Articles 2, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which was sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in No. 1 on the market) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to each of the crimes listed in the judgment No. 1 [2017 Highest 801], the Defendant also asserted that the lower court is identical to the aforementioned mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the circumstances revealed by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the defendant as if he were to pay bathing expenses and the service charges for the use of friendship and the service charges without his ability or intent, and that he stolen the victim’s money of KRW 30,000.
In so determining, the lower court does not accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that there was no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine.
① The victim E, including the Defendant on the day of the instant case, was 30,000 won of the 30,000 won received from the immediately preceding customer, and was put in the Defendant’s scam by placing it in the scamburine next to the Defendant. After completing the scam against the Defendant, the victim E was scambling the scam and next to the scam.