beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for one year and two months, respectively.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Of the judgment of the court below, the Defendants’ joint criminal conduct was consistent with the fact that the sales of the company operated by the Defendants at November 201 were low due to an irregular demand, etc. However, there was intent and ability to pay the profits for the investment by means of planning new projects at the time.
(2) As to the crime committed by Defendant B on September 15, 201 among the single criminal acts committed by Defendant B, Defendant B only participated in the guidance upon the request of the victim P at the time, and there was no call from the said victim to enable the said victim to join the system, and there was an intent and ability to pay the fraternity.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending each of the above facts and finding the guilty guilty.
B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing decision is recognized, each of the original sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and two months, and Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Fact-finding: (a) The Defendants’ joint crime part of the Defendants’ joint crime was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated; (c) The Defendants’ joint crime part of the Defendants’ joint crime part; (d) the Defendant’s annual profit that the Defendants promised to receive investments from the victims by G Co., Ltd., a company managing the Defendants, to pay the victims the profits accrued from the Heind Co., Ltd.’s operation within the F’s respective stores; and (e) the Defendants’ direct management of the Heind Co., Ltd. around October 2011, prior to receiving investments from the victims, led to the rapid aggravation of the profits of the Defendants; and (e) the annual profit of 13% that the Defendants promised to the victims, at the time, could not be paid to the victims, considering the current status of the operation of the Heindco’s own.