사기미수
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)
A. The Defendant was aware that he delivered gambling funds, but did not recognize the fact that he was involved in the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant made the aforementioned assertion in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) while fully aware that the source of the instant funds may be a person who suffered damage to a fraudulent crime, such as Bosing, not a person seeking illegal gambling, by taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had the criminal intent to take part in the crime of Bosing, and thus, did not accept the Defendant’s assertion.
A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and there is no error of law in misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing was committed by the attempted attempt and did not actually cause damage.
Defendant has no record of punishment in Korea.
On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed against many unspecified victims in a systematic and planned manner, and its nature is very poor.
The defendant merely took part in such crime for the purpose of easily raising money, and the motive for the crime is not sufficient.
In addition, in full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the sentencing of the lower court is too large and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.
3. Conclusion.