beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for three months and for six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A1’s compensation order (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), the lower court determined that the applicant would pay 3.5 million won to the applicant for compensation, and the applicant’s application for compensation is dismissed on the ground that there is no objective ground for calculating the amount of compensation, since the market price of the applicant for compensation (GTS125 EFI) is limited to one million won, and there is no objective ground for calculating the amount of compensation.
2) As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court’s punishment (a 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (Defendant B) alleged that Defendant B had lost stolen property at the second trial date, on the ground that the statute of limitations for prosecution against the principal offender had expired, Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant A lost stolen property at the second trial date.
A) Defendant B was unaware of the fact that Defendant B was a stolen of 2 Orala (a white mixed, PCX 1 and NAE 1, hereinafter “the instant Orala 2”).
Defendant
B was already punished by Defendant A as a crime of acquiring stolen property.
Because talks about the above stories, it was thought that the two prices of the above stories were not stolen.
B) Defendant B did not keep the above Obane.
Defendant
B stated that Defendant A had the above Oba, but it is nothing more than that Defendant A left at his own discretion before Defendant B. 2) The punishment of the lower court which was unfair in sentencing (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal as to Defendant B prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.
In this court, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictments against Defendant B in exchange for the purpose of changing the facts charged against Defendant B, and since this court changed the subject of the adjudication, the part on Defendant B among the judgment below cannot be maintained.
(b).