beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act due to false reporting on the I’s check number table on November 11, 2010, and convicted Defendant A of the remainder of the facts charged. The lower court acquitted Defendant A of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act on March 17, 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant A.
However, only the Defendants appealed the part of the judgment below's conviction and did not appeal both the Defendants and the prosecutor with respect to the portion of innocence and dismissal of prosecution. Therefore, the part of the judgment below's acquittal and dismissal of prosecution are finalized, and only the remaining portion of the judgment of the court below is subject to the
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (as to the facts of each crime described in paragraphs (1) through (4) at the time of original adjudication, 1) mistake of facts (as to the facts of each crime described in paragraph (1) at the time of original adjudication, K and N (as to the facts of each crime described in paragraph (1) at the time of original adjudication, 2) as to the facts of the crime described in paragraph (2) above, Defendant A filed a report of alteration or alteration with financial institutions by abusing its supplementary authority, and 2) as to the facts of the crime, Defendant A is not an issuer of the check number R, and the facts of the crime described in paragraph (2) cannot be the subject of false report under Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act. 3) Defendant A did not act in collusion with Q for the criminal facts described in paragraph (3), and Defendant A did not receive a suspension of transaction by issuing a check in collusion with Defendant B, but there was no other fact that Defendant A did not receive a suspension of transaction. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A of this part of the charges