beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) The Defendant was aware of, and participated in, the crime of phishing fraud.
The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B: The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Prosecutor: The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) aware that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime even though he/she had the knowledge that he/she was involved in the instant licensing, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in comparison with the records, the court below’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts, such as the defendant’s assertion.
subsection (b) of this section.
Defendant
A’s assertion in this part is without merit.
B. As to the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s argument on the illegal sentencing, Defendant A’s crime of this case was committed in a systematic and planned manner, and its personal and social harm is serious; the instant crime of this case was committed in such a way as a total amount of books, recruitment books, withdrawal books, delivery books, remittance books, etc.; as well as the total amount of books, and the persons who participated in the instant crime also need to be punished strictly; the Defendant, who is aware that it was the crime of Bosing fraud, but was aware that it was the crime of Bosing fraud, took part in the Defendant’s delivery of money for the purpose of punishing money easily; the victim wanted to be punished against the Defendant; and the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by the Defendant up to the trial.