beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the amount of Defendant A’s damage and the background of the instant crime, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the crime: I, the part concerning the tenant's name among the fact of fraud on L's real estate and the fact that the monthly rent contract on L's real estate was forged. Therefore, even though there was no intention to obtain fraud, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts by deeming that Defendant B had the intention to use the above investigation document and defraudation. (2) In light of the fact that there was an agreement with the victims of unfair sentencing, etc., the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
C. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the prosecutor (not guilty portion: the part in the lessor’s name among the events of each falsified document) can be recognized that each of the instant lease agreements was forged, but the court below determined that this part was insufficient to be recognized as forged, and rendered a judgment of acquittal of the reason as to the part in the facts charged for the exercise of each falsified Document, and thus, there was an
2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that, in light of the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, Defendant B could have acknowledged the fact that Defendant B, while being aware of the fact that the lease contract was concluded with respect to Defendant B and L real estate, acquired money by deceiving the victims, and used a forged lease contract under the name of the lessee during that process.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.