beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on confiscation against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Seizure from A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The Defendants did not have the intention to acquire money in collusion with a name-free person, as stated in the facts charged, because the Defendants merely delivered money and did not have been involved in the criminal act of singishing fraud.
【The sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment of 8 months, Defendant B’s imprisonment of 10 months) is too unreasonable.
B. The cash confiscated by Defendant A at the lower court is a money having no relationship with the Defendant’s crime, and the Defendant was in the ordinary possession of the Defendant. Therefore, it is unreasonable to confiscate it.
C. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants and the defense counsel made the same assertion in the court below, and the court below rejected the Defendants’ and the defense counsel’s assertion based on the aforementioned circumstances in the judgment in the "Determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument". The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in the judgment. The following circumstances are as follows: ① the Defendants shared the role and delivered the money, i.e., the amount excluding daily allowances, out of the money received from the victims, by receiving the money from the victims; ② the Defendants merely delivered the money to the upper party; ② the Defendants merely stated to the effect that they did not know the identity of the person who received the money, even though they merely play the role of delivering the money; and the Defendants stated to the effect that the identity of the person who received the money would not be properly known, such act is a typical role in collecting and delivering the money in the crime of scaming, and at least there was no negligence in the fact that the Defendants received the money at least at the time of the crime of this case. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts
B. The conditions of sentencing are compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing.