Judgment

Defendant

A As stated in the first head of the judgment of the court below, the crime of this case is established in relation to a crime for which judgment has become final and a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of this case and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall take into account equity in cases where the crime of this case and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal

However, even in the past, Defendant A committed the instant crime despite the past history of being sentenced to a fine for fraud, and the amount of the instant damage exceeds KRW 150 million.

Defendant

A was unable to reach an agreement with the victim until the court of first instance, and the damage was not completely recovered.

There is no special circumstance that differs from the original judgment in the first instance.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors such as Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant

B It is recognized that Defendant B has no record of punishment for fraud or property crimes.

However, the nature of the crime is heavy in light of the fact that Defendant B took part in the crime of this case and the considerable part of the damage amount in this case appears to have been used by Defendant B.

Defendant

B was unable to reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial of the party, and the damage was not completely recovered.

There is no special circumstance that differs from the original judgment in the first instance.

The above circumstances and the age, sex, environment of Defendant B, and others.