beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the defendant A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The Defendants borrowed the instant money by stating that “it is necessary and urgent to operate an agent and funds are also needed” to the victims in relation to the operation of the instant educational institute by mistake of facts (with regard to the original conviction), and do not deceiving the purpose of use as stated in this part of the facts charged.
There is an error of law that affects the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts on the conviction part of the judgment.
(2) The sentence of the lower judgment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (each of eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact that there is no explicit contract between the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion) and the Defendants, the amount paid to the Defendants was set on the basis of tuition fees, and the amount paid to the Defendants was too large in light of the private teaching institute’s profit. If the Defendants received the commission of proxy operation from the victims, the victim’s monthly salary is not a reason to separately pay, and the amount paid is calculated and paid up to 10 won, and it is difficult to view it as the consideration of proxy operation, not the tuition fees specified in the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The sentence of the lower judgment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.