beta
Text
Defendant
A Of the first and second parts on Defendant D, each part on Defendant D shall be reversed.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of selling philophones) the Defendant: (a) did not sell Melograms (one philophones; hereinafter “philophones”) to E; (b) did not err in the judgment of the first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the charge of selling philophones by taking the Defendant’s consistent statement, thereby misleading the fact.
B) Even if the Defendant sold the instant phiphones, E was sentenced to the reduction of his sentence, in order to obtain the phiphones in return for the transaction, D had the Defendant commit the crime of selling the phiphones. As such, the instant indictment was based on an illegal undercover operation, but the first instance judgment was found guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment of three years, the second instance court: one year, and additional collection of KRW 402,00) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to mediation of the purchase and sale of phiphones), by causing the Defendant’s criminal intent to arrange the purchase and sale of phiphones for the purpose of being sentenced to reduction of punishment, and thus, the Defendant committed the instant crime. As such, this part of the indictment was based on an illegal undercover operation, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. (ii) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 602,00, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
C. Prosecutor: The first and second court’s punishment on the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of fact (a point of sale of philophonephones)
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court held that the Defendant possessed phiphones at the scene of the crime and sold them to E.