beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
The punishment against A shall be two years, and the imprisonment for Defendant B shall be one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts (Article 4 of the judgment of the court below) Defendant A explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Nos. 1, 7, and 8 as stated in the judgment of the court at the second trial of this court.
Since all the affairs related to the appointment of U representative director of U, a corporation, have been conducted with X's permission, the defendant has forged his written acceptance of appointment, etc.
Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing) explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date at this Court’s trial date.
The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. Unless there are reasonable circumstances to deem that there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of conviction during the appellate court’s trial process of the determination of Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and that the determination of evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail in the “decision on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel” of the “decision on the determination of the facts charged No. 3. 4 (Defendant A)” of the said judgment.
It can be seen that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules, for the reason that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is against the rules of logic and experience.