beta
Text
[Defendant B] Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the crime Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 8 of the judgment against the defendant is reversed.
The court below held the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition of an organization, etc.) among the facts charged against the Defendants, although there was no fact that the Defendants joined the Hmph (hereinafter “Hmph”), which is a criminal organization, was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 1 year for the remaining crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant C: imprisonment for 6 months and 3 months for the crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, and imprisonment for 6 months for the crimes as stated in Article 1-b as stated in the judgment of the court below, and 6 months for the crimes as stipulated in Article 7 as stated in the judgment of the court below) which the court below sentenced the Defendants to the
2. Determination
A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① AO, which has joined the H wave, was investigated by the investigative agency three times, and was allowed to join the cafeteria with Defendant B who was working for the H wave; on January 2009, the Defendants were allowed to attend the cafeteria located in the Twit-si. Defendant B had talked about the HP’s code of conduct, etc. from Defendant B, and followed Defendant B’s behavior. The Defendants were allowed to act. The HaO made a considerably specific and consistent statement in relation to the situation in which the HP was working as a member of the HP’s organization at the investigation agency, but the Defendants did not have joined the HP in light of the aforementioned statements made by the lower court at the investigation agency as well as the above statements made by the Defendants and the HR as they were in the investigation agency.