beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.31 2016노214

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (each of three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime committed by the Defendants is not only planned and organized to employ telemers, but also is also very bad in the nature of the crime by deceiving a number of good citizens who want to assist the disabled.

In addition, this crime causes many people to be able to support the socially weak and eventually makes it more worse to the position of the socially weak including the disabled.

Considering the above facts in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, the lower court sentenced the Defendants to a less minor sentence than the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee in consideration of the following factors: (a) the Defendants led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendants led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (c) the Defendants did not have the same criminal history; and (d) the amount of money obtained by the Defendants was used to purchase allowances and goods to the Parties; and (e) the profits actually acquired by the Defendants were to be KRW 200 million; and (e) the Defendants donated part of the amount to the disabled organizations or universities after the instant crime, etc.; and (e) the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relations, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) all the sentencing conditions, including the following factors: imprisonment with labor for more than four years and June

Although Defendant A additionally donated KRW 20 million to a disabled organization, Defendant B, etc. at the university, etc., Defendant B, even though the period of the instant crime reaches four years and the amount acquired by deception was a large amount of KRW 1.1 billion, and the sentencing of the lower court’s judgment as above is too unreasonable, considering that the sentence of the lower court is too large, and the sentencing of the said case is considered to have been determined in full.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendants' unfair argument of sentencing.

3. Conclusion.