특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.
Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.
On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.
We examine whether the sentence of the lower judgment, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the substance of the specific case.
In sentencing against the defendant, the court below held that ① the crime of this case was committed by the defendant in collusion with G, etc., by taking advantage of the false supply contract in which the purchase price has been unsatisfed, the defendant acquired KRW 7.545 million from financial institutions as loans from financial institutions which are victims, and the criminal profits (the difference between loans and the real purchase price and the refund of value-added tax) are very poor in that the defendant and his accomplice gave the principal and interest of the loan which have not been repaid to the next borrower while they are necessary, and the defendant led to the crime of this case by arranging the loan of this case, and the defendant acquired the amount of KRW 141 million from the value-added tax refund, and other profits acquired from the crime of this case.