특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
Of the above, the part against Defendant B and Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant C.
The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the imprisonment of four years, the imprisonment of three years, and the imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing of the premised legal doctrine is a discretionary judgment that takes place within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors on the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court's sentencing should be respected in principle unless there are such exceptional circumstances.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As to the Defendant’s assertion, various sentencing conditions against the Defendant as indicated in the instant records and arguments, namely, deception of victims as if they had no real value, and in the process, writing and printing documents related to the government bonds, which are false Brazil in the process, and the Defendant, who led with B, planned and carried out each of the instant frauds, led the Defendant to block each of the instant frauds according to B’s instructions, and did not assert that they led and carried out. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant at the trial.