beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.
evidence of seizure.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
The sentence A (nomenclature) of the original judgment (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
B misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A, etc., has mediated the sale of the paper cargo vehicles embezzled by K and Defendant A, I, and J (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”), and did not acquire the instant cargo vehicles, which are stolen goods, from K. In order to export the paper cargo vehicles acquired by Defendant A, etc., Defendant A, etc., but did not participate in the process of forging and exercising five copies of the export repair report.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.
Defendant
C misunderstanding of facts (as to the part Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the crime log of the original judgment), Defendant C was asked by K to introduce the other party to sell the instant cargo of this case to Defendant B. On September 2013, 2013, K was introduced to Defendant B to arrange the sale of one of the cargo of this case, which is the main cargo, and there was no fact in relation to the sale of the cargo between K and Defendant B around October 2013.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant
We examine whether the confiscated evidence 2, 71, 72, and 73 of the judgment of the court below on official authority against A is legitimate.
First, the U.S.C. No. 2 (USB, 4GB) constitutes the goods provided for the instant crime, since Defendant A stored the necessary form when he/she engaged in the act of forging a detailed statement of export declaration to export the instant cargo vehicle.
On the other hand, on April 30, 2014, the evidence Nos. 71 (U.S. 100 US$230), Nos. 72 (O.S. 95), and Nos. 73 (O.S. 87) seized on Defendant A’s vehicle is a criminal trial against the facts charged under the Criminal Act.