beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant
A, B, and D.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Defendant A (1) did not have any negligence as to aiding and abetting the fraud, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case, there is an error of mistake of fact in the judgment below which found Defendant A guilty.
(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C The sentence of the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(d)
Defendant
D. (1) The court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case even though he did not have the principal's intention or aiding and abetting the crime of this case with respect to the crime of Bosing fraud of this case.
(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
E. Each of the lower court’s sentences against the Defendants against the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court as to the Defendants A and D’s assertion of mistake, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the following grounds: “Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion”
Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is a mistake of misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendants.
Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
B. In full view of Defendant A, B, and D’s respective arguments of sentencing and the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant arguments and records, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the various grounds for sentencing asserted by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, and otherwise, special circumstances to the extent that the lower court’s punishment should be changed.