beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (Defendant A’s 201 Highest 1912 case) did not mean that the Defendant purchased the instant land to the victim within three years and can be seen as three times the benefit of selling it.
Nevertheless, the court below has erred in misunderstanding of facts because it pronounced guilty on the facts of the crime.
(The defendants stated that the defendants, through the summary of the oral argument dated May 9, 2013, the case of the 2011 Highest 1512 accused accused accuseds the victims and reflects in depth the victims' awareness of and injury to them. Since they stated in the trial court to the same purport as the above summary of the oral argument, they are deemed to have withdrawn the argument of mistake of facts as to the case of the 201 Highest 1512 case.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the defendant as stated in the following facts: the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the defendant by this court; and the subject of the trial was changed by this court. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, the above argument of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.
B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts may not be deemed to have taken advantage of the fact that, even if a certain exaggeration or falsity is involved in the publicity and advertisement of goods, if it is possible to take advantage of the general commercial transaction practices and the good faith principle, it would not be deemed to have taken place. However, if a specific fact about important matters in a transaction is falsely notified in a manner that would be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, it goes beyond the limits of exaggeration