beta
Text
Defendant
A's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B. a fine.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) made a guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case on the sole basis of the reporter’s unilateral statement, and the Defendants merely provided guest soil or small-scale stop work on the farmland whose creation has been completed. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to Defendant B, “I” among the facts charged against Defendant B, to “I”, and this court permitted the changes in the subject matter of the judgment, thereby making it impossible to maintain the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendants' misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are still subject to the judgment of the court.
B. The lower court rejected the Defendants and the Defendant B’s defense counsel’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendants and the Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted the same facts and circumstances as the reasons for the above appeal in the lower court’s reasoning, which are similar to the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and determined that the Defendants and the Defendants’ defense counsel constituted a change in the form and quality for farming.”
In addition to the following facts and circumstances recognized by these evidence and duly admitted and investigated evidence, the judgment of the court below is justified.
① The Defendants and the Defendants’ defense counsel did not grasp the existing status of each land of this case on the sole basis of the reporter’s unilateral statement.