All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) In full view of the circumstances such as the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the background leading up to the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime, the role of the Defendant in charge, and the awareness of the general public’s scaming, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged that the Defendant participated in the crime with the intention of joint processing, and found the Defendant guilty of only the crime of aiding and abetting fraud. (2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of its stated reasoning that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime with the intent of joint processing by using another assistant’s act, which led to the Defendant’s own intent to commit a fraudulent crime beyond the intent of aiding and abetting and that the Defendant was jointly engaged in the instant crime by using another assistant’s act, and found the Defendant guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, which is a reduced fact.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned fact-finding and determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged by the public prosecutor, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part

B. We examine both the determination of unreasonable sentencing and the Defendant’s assertion.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.