beta
Text
The judgment below
All convictions shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for a year and six months, and Defendant B for two years, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 1 year and six months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service, 2 years and six months of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. On October 29, 2012, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had a written estimate under the name of J M was inconsistent with the objective facts. All the written estimate and written estimate under the name of J were delivered to G on October 31, 2012, and the Defendant’s Defendant’s written request for the submission of a forged estimate under the name of J was made by means of registered mail to G on October 31, 2012. In full view of the circumstantial evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant forged and used the written estimate.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. An ex officio determination prosecutor changed the name of the crime to "the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)", and deleted "Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes" under the applicable law, and applied Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes"), with the content that the crime is changed to
Inasmuch as the subject of adjudication was changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the part of innocence in the judgment below is still subject to the judgment of this court because it is not inconsistent with the revised facts charged.
B. Determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts