사문서위조등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake is divided, the registration of large-scale subsidiary business, violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users, etc., and the fact that the punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where each of the crimes of this case is concurrently judged.
However, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant has been punished several times for the same fraud crimes; (b) has been sentenced to a fine on several occasions; (c) has been sentenced to a suspended sentence; (d) the Defendant has a record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence; (c) the commission of each of the crimes of this case; (d) the commission of each of the crimes of this case; (e) the commission of each of the crimes of this case; (e) the damage was not recovered from the name of KRW 132 million; (e) the victims did not agree with the victims; (e) there was no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment; (e) the motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior; and (e)
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., the first head of the crime room in the judgment below: (a) the first head of the crime room is the violation of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users; (b) the fourth act’s violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry; and (c) the fourth act’s violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry; and (d) the term “agency” in Article 364(1)10 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry; and (d) the first act in the part of 2015, 309, the first act in the judgment of the court below, “each site’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users.”