beta
Text
The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the first and second court is reversed, respectively.
Defendant
B shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and four months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the overall purport of Defendant A1’s testimony and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the judgment of the court below of the second instance), Defendant A’s statement on Defendant A cannot be deemed as a statement to the effect that Defendant B did not take part in the fraud, and rather, Defendant B took part in the act of fraud. 2) The sentence of each of the court below’s sentencing (No. 1: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor, No. 2 years of imprisonment, and No. 2: 3 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The respective sentence of the court below (No. 1 year of imprisonment, No. 2 year of imprisonment, and No. 4 months of imprisonment) against Defendant B 1 and 2 is unfair.
C. Each sentence against the Defendants of the first instance court is unfair as it is too unhued.
2. Determination
A. Of the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B as to each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the case of appeal by the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against Defendant B was consolidated and deliberated. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the term of punishment aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
(1) Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below of first and second shall not be reversed ex officio on the ground of a consolidated trial, as long as each of the judgment of the court below maintains the sentence of the same kind.
Defendant
A's judgment of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the second judgment of the court below, and the following circumstances, i.e., Defendant A was present and testified as a witness of the accused case, such as fraud against Defendant B, etc. of the Chuncheon District Court 2012 Godan204, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and Defendant B was not involved in the operation of the shopping mall site, and profits therefrom.