사기등
The judgment below
Of them, the part of the 2016 High Order 8686-1 (Separation) case against Defendant A (6 months of imprisonment) shall be reversed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) Defendant A sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment and eight months of imprisonment for each of the crimes in the 2016 senior group of 8686-1 (Separation) decision against the Defendant, respectively, with respect to each of the crimes in the 2016 senior group of 8686-1 (Separation) decision.
The defendant thought that most of the victims are the relatives of the same kind and living together with the defendant's knowledge and will not be a big problem.
I think that the crime has been committed, and that the sentence becomes final and conclusive, two years of imprisonment should be imposed upon the cancellation of the suspended sentence.
Considering the above circumstances, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
Defendant
B The lower court sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment.
The defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and only has the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition under a minor.
In addition, the defendant commits a crime due to coercion, intimidation, or assault by an accomplice.
Considering these circumstances, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
Defendant
First of all, I examine the case part of the 2016 High Order 8686-1 (Separation) decision of the court below.
In that the defendant, using another person's resident registration certificate, opened a mobile phone in another person's name and disposed of it, has committed many crimes, and the crime is very heavy in that the criminal method has interviewed.
The defendant had had a record of juvenile protective disposition several times at the time.
However, on September 29, 2016, the defendant is against his mistake, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment for 2 years with prison labor for special larceny, etc. on September 29, 2016 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on October 7, 2016. This part of the crime and special larceny, etc. in the final and conclusive judgment should be considered in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act at the same time when the judgment is rendered.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it is recognized that the court below's punishment in this part is too unreasonable.
(2) The following: