사기등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding Defendant C and D, and the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s punishment (the first instance court’s punishment: 2 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C’s punishment (the first instance court’s imprisonment: 6 months; 1 year; 4: Imprisonment with prison labor for the fourth instance court’s imprisonment; 2 months; and 5 million won for the fifth instance court’s fine) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant D’s punishment (the first instance court’s sentence: 6 months of imprisonment, the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor, the second instance court’s confiscation) is too unreasonable.
The second sentence against the Defendant D by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination of sentencing against Defendant A is based on statutory penalty, which takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.
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, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of Defendant A, and considering the circumstances asserted by Defendant A as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
B. Ex officio determination of Defendant C is made to Defendant C.