beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A and the part on the victim M in the name of professor for Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Unless it is necessary to separate the defendant A and et al., the name of the defendant and the victim in each of the pertinent items is not indicated in the pertinent items, and they are referred to as "defendants" and "victims" respectively, and the remaining defendants are named in their names.
In fact, the defendant's defense counsel who misjudgments the facts and commits the illegal sentencing did not explicitly assert the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, even if the defendant participated in the crime, the defendant's defense counsel stated that the reasons for appeal include unfair arguments on the grounds of appeal at the first trial date of the first trial of the court below, it shall be deemed that the reasons for appeal are the same as the grounds for appeal.
1) The lower court, without taking into account the following circumstances, found the Defendant guilty of each of the instant fraud and the violation of the justice system against the Defendant. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A) The Defendant, under the pretext of employing a professor for the victim M, would have the victim employ P, a parent of the victim, as a professor.
(2) No such person shall be required to make a transfer.
Each statement of the victim, X, and P is not consistent, and there was no proof as to whether it was transferred on February 2, 2012 to the victim, and otherwise, the defendant involved in the crime of fraud in this part of this part. The defendant was involved in the crime of fraud in Q et al.
there is no evidence to consider.
B) On January 24, 2013, the fact that KRW 100 million transferred to the account in the name of V on January 24, 2013, among the fact of fraud and the violation of the law of defense against the victim M, was not clearly revealed, and KRW 100 million was lent.