사기
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of this case’s sentencing conditions, each of the lower courts’ respective sentences (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and six months; imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A; imprisonment for a maximum of one year and eight months for a short term and eight months for Defendant B; and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B; a maximum of eight months for a short term and six months for Defendant B) is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine the reasons for Defendant B’s appeal ex officio prior to the determination of Defendant B’s grounds for appeal.
1) Each appeal case against Defendant B was consolidated with each of the judgment below against Defendant B, and each of the offenses against Defendant B constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, in the trial at the same time, a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part against Defendant B and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.
2) According to the records, Defendant B was born on August 21, 1998 and was a juvenile as provided in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of each judgment of the court below, but it was apparent that he had reached the age of 19 and reached the age of 19. Thus, in this regard, the part on Defendant B and the judgment of the court below of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant B to an illegal sentence under the Juvenile Act against Defendant B became unable to be maintained any more.
B. The crime of this case with respect to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is a case where Defendant A participated in the organization of the crime “Sishing” and obtained money from an unspecified number of people, and thus there is a great need to punish the social harm caused by the crime of this case, and there are unfavorable circumstances, such as that Defendant A’s role and degree of participation are not easy in each crime of this case, the amount of damage is large, and no damage is supported by the recovery measures. However, Defendant A himself.