beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Defendant
C is innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and B’s punishment (two years of imprisonment for each of Defendant A and B) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the Prosecutor 1’s misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant C), AW, and I’s statements, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant.
2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (with respect to Defendant A and B) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
A. The prosecutor of the lower court’s decision on the permission for changes in indictments: (a) prosecuted Defendant A and B on the violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud, the Damage to Telecommunications Finance Fraud, and the Refund of Damage; (b) prosecuted Defendant C on each of the charges of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting Fraud; (c) filed an application for changes in indictment with the lower court to add crimes committed by a criminal organization and crimes committed by a criminal organization; and (d) the lower court granted the permission.
B. Amendments to the relevant legal principles are permitted only to the extent recognized as identical to the facts charged, and where there exists an application for changes to the indictment to the effect that the facts charged are added to the facts charged, the court shall dismiss the application. The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in basic respect. However, in determining the identity of the facts charged, the defendant’s act and its social factual relations should be based in mind, and normative elements should also be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1438, May 14, 199, etc.). In addition, when the court of first instance permitted the above permission for the illegal changes to the indictment, the court of appeal revoked the above permission decision and prosecute the defendant.