beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months, Defendant B’s imprisonment of 2 years and 3.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A and B’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) with respect to fraud, Defendants (A) (1) did not instruct the Defendants C to withdraw the part transferred to L’s account from No. 17 per annum of crime No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below, and there was no fact that the Defendants participated in this crime.
② In addition to the portion transferred to the account under the name of AG and AH among the items of crime No. 1-A (1) of the crime committed in the judgment below, the Defendants did not instruct the Defendant C to withdraw, and there was no fact that the Defendants participated in this crime.
(B) Defendant A’s participation in the crime was from the lower court on September 2012, 2012. As such, there is no fact of participating in the crime No. 1-B among the criminal facts indicated in the lower judgment, and there is no specific indication as to what form the Defendant participated in the control of the crime, and even if the crime is recognized, it is merely an aiding and abetting crime.
(C) Defendant B (1) did not have been involved in the crime No. 1-B and (c) among the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below, and does not explicitly indicate how the Defendant participated in the control of the crime in any form, and even if the crime is recognized, it is merely an aiding and abetting crime.
② Nos. 14 (Gaphone 4) and 15 (Gagal Nos) are deemed to have been used individually by the defendant, and they do not have any connection with the crime of this case, and it is unreasonable to confiscate them.
(2) As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Defendant A did not take part in Defendant A’s crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (A) No. 11 through 33 on a yearly basis.
(B) There is no fact that Defendant B took part in the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in Defendant B’s list of crimes (2) No. 32,33 annually.
(C) In the case of the Defendants’ crime sight table (2) No. 32 and 33, the charges were not specifically specified, such as that the card number is not specified, and thus, the Defendants should be dismissed.
B. The court below's decision on unreasonable sentencing (the defendants).