beta
Text
All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
B. As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely received cash from the victims of Bosing with the knowledge that he/she was engaged in the money exchange operation with the employees of Bosing, and did not have the awareness and intent to participate in the crime of Bosing. Thus, there is no relationship of conspiracy with the employees of Bosing.
(2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below rejected the above argument in the part of the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" on the ground that the defendant made the same assertion as the above grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. If we closely examine the above judgment of the court below compared with evidence, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged
In particular, the Defendant alleged that he did not know the content of the forged official document as he did not know of the content of the falsified official document in the process of printing out the forged official document under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and delivering it to the victims. However, the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence as follows. In other words, the Defendant asked that he was aware of the content of the falsified official document, which is, immediately after the printing of the falsified official document, “it is not a day to exchange the document at the scam scam in the scam.” In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant was aware of the content of the falsified official document. The Defendant had a sufficient opportunity to view the content of the falsified official document by printing out several copies of the falsified official document.
Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous or erroneous as the defendant asserts.