beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant A filed a complaint against Defendant B under the conviction that Defendant A forged a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the name of Defendant A on April 29, 2015, and is merely merely a false accusation or exaggeration of the facts of the complaint, or a mistake of subjective evaluation of the law. B) If Defendant A is deemed to have led to the confession of the crime of false accusation during the trial of the lower court, the punishment should be mitigated or exempted.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended sentence) is too unhutiled and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① According to the appraisal result with the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Scientific Investigation, according to the contract of this case, according to the “monthly tax” and “proviso” as stated in the contract of this case, it appears that Defendant A was highly likely that Defendant A was aware of each day, and ② the original copy of the contract of this case submitted by Defendant B to an investigative agency (see, e.g., the page 310 page of the evidence record) appears to be the same as that stated in the contract of this case. Since the original copy does not contain the personal information and signature and seal of Defendant A, the contract of this case is signed and sealed by Defendant A on September 8, 2015 on the content of the original copy. ③ Defendant A filed a complaint with Defendant B on September 8, 2015, and signed and sealed a blank contract that did not contain any special agreement, and Defendant B signed and sealed the aforementioned additional section.
The result of the appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is the same.