현주건조물방화등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the Defendants (defendant A and B, three years of imprisonment, and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Common sentencing grounds against the Defendants appear to be seriously against the Defendants when they recognized their mistakes. They can be considered in favor of the Defendants.
However, the crime of this case committed by the Defendants is very bad in light of the substance and method of the crime, the degree of risk to the life, body, and social peace of others caused by the crime, and so forth, the crime of this case was committed by several people in collusion to receive fire insurance money, and by deceiving an insurance company, by deceiving the fire insurance company.
Considering these circumstances, there is a need for proper punishment corresponding to the act and result against the defendants.
B. Defendant A is an initial offender.
There was an agreement with the victim of the crime of fraud, and there was an agreement with some of the victims who suffered property damage due to the crime of fire prevention.
Such circumstances are the circumstances that would be favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the defendant seems to have led the crime, and among accomplices, the benefit gained by the crime is the largest.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
(c)
Defendant
B The defendant seems to have little profit from the crime of fraud.
Each of the crimes of this case shall take into account the equity between the first head of the judgment below and the concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
Such circumstances are the circumstances that would be favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the Defendant committed an act of committing a crime against the present main building directly.
These circumstances.