beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The facts charged in the instant case are merely stating that “the Defendant remitted the purchase price of philopon to import philopon from a person with no personal name in the region of the Chinese Mademan on February 201, 201,” and does not clearly specify when, where, the Defendant is, where, what means, the Defendant conspired to buy philopon, from a person with no personal name or with no personal name and with no personal name and with no personal name and with no personal name and with no personal name, where, and how, the Defendant remitted the purchase
(2) The Defendant came to know through J and Internet fraud advertising, and was engaged in brokerage trade, and was requested by J to send other merchants with a desire as part of brokerage trade, and was not aware of the fact that phiphones were written.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year, three months of imprisonment, and confiscation) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. Whether the facts charged are specified must be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime, and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient to integrate these elements to the extent that the facts constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts. Even if the date, place, etc. of the crime are not explicitly indicated in the indictment, the general indication of the facts charged is unavoidable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and the contents of the indictment are not specified if it does not go against the above degree, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his right to defense.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do48, Jun. 2, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, the health care unit, a public prosecutor who conspireds with the Defendant to commit a crime, and a person who committed a crime.