beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against the Defendants shall be reversed.
Defendant
C. Judgment.
Reasons
As to the injury caused by robbery among the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance court misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendants did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition to use and dispose of X mobile phones as their own property or to deduct X money from the money of X in the course of confirming whether X was punished for sexual traffic, by reporting sexual traffic to the police station, so that X does not contact with the books of sexual traffic brokerage.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the facts charged is erroneous and erroneous.
The sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment of sentencing (Defendant C: 2 months of imprisonment, 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and 3 years and 8 months of imprisonment) and the sentence sentenced to the second instance judgment (Defendant C: 6 months of imprisonment and Defendant A: 3 months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.
Judgment
Before determining the reasons for appeal by authority, this paper examines ex officio.
The Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the two appeals cases. The crimes of the first and second judgments are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.
In addition, on May 25, 2016, among the facts charged in the first instance trial, the prosecutor maintained the previous facts charged on the Defendants’ violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) and the injury resulting from robbery as the primary facts charged, and applied Articles 281(1) and 276(1) of the Criminal Act in the preliminary application of the law, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts charged on the injury resulting from confinement by the Defendants as stated below to the preliminary charges, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.
In this respect, the judgment of the first instance court and the second.