beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.04.11 2014노64

사기등

Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant C.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below (the defendant A, C, and D's imprisonment for 8 months, the defendant C, and the defendant D's fine for 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (Unfair)’s sentence against Defendant A, B, and C (the Defendant A: imprisonment of August, the Defendant B: imprisonment of August, the suspension of execution of the sentence of two years, and the Defendant C: imprisonment of two months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, C, and Prosecutor

A. Defendant A and B led to the confession of the instant crime, agreed with the defrauded victim company, and Defendant B’s primary crime without any criminal history, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the amount of damage caused by the Defendants’ fraud reaches KRW 40 million in total. In particular, the fraud crime committed by the Defendants led the Defendants to commit the crime of this case of the same law on January 8, 2008, after being sentenced two years to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on August 22, 2009, without being able to know at all during the repeated crime period without being able to receive interest rate much more than the statutory interest rate when the Defendants operated a unregistered business without registration and received a loan from the financial company, and then sold the above vehicle in another place (the continuous "motor vehicle tin"), which is very professional, planned, and organized, and which is very poor to commit the crime. The Defendants A had already been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on August 22, 2009, and had the Defendants receive more than 40 million interest on the loan, and had the Defendants receive less than the total amount of money before and after the crime of this case.