beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and F shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant F.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the injury caused by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was a doctor’s opinion that Q Q’s operation was unnecessary at the time, even during the operation, there was low possibility of recovery, and there was no intention to abandon Q in the course of the operation, but there was no intention to abandon Q. Of the following: (a) As to the injury caused by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles; (b) the Defendant intentionally caused an accident; or (c) even if there was no injury to the extent of hospitalization, the Defendant did not manipulateed the accident as if the accident was committed, or was hospitalized for a long time despite the absence of the fact of the accident; and (d) the lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months) is too unreasonable.
B. As to the number 13, 16, and 18 of the annexed list of crimes, among the facts of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant F1 did not have intentionally caused an accident, or attempted to manipulate an accident as if the accident was false, or obtained insurance money by long-term hospitalization even though the accident was not likely to cause an injury to the extent of hospitalization. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. Of the facts of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there is no fact that Defendants B, C, and D1 obtained insurance proceeds by being hospitalized for a long time even though they did not intentionally cause each accident, or attempted to manipulate the accident as if they were false, or did not inflict any injury to the extent of hospitalization, among the facts of habitual frauds, the sentencing of each of the lower courts on unfair sentencing (22 years of imprisonment, 3, 7, 9 (Defendant B), 2, 7, 8, 12, and 14 (Defendant C), 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 (Defendant D) was too unreasonable.
2. Determination of the grounds for appeal