전기통신금융사기피해금환급에관한특별법위반등
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
evidence of seizure.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and confiscation, one year and four months of imprisonment, and confiscation) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It appears that there are favorable circumstances in which Defendant A’s mistake was recognized and the attitude of reflecting the Defendant A’s mistake appears.
However, considering the social harm in the crime of telecommunications-based financial fraud and the details of the defendant's participation in the crime, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant A exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the nature of the crime is serious; (b) the punishment was imposed four times only by sentence; (c) the victim's damage has not been recovered; (d) the victim's participation in the crime of this case was involved in the crime of this case; and (e) the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, means and result; (c) the circumstances after the crime of this case; (d) the defendant's age, character
B. Considering the social harm of the telecommunications-based financial fraud committed by Defendant B and the degree of participation by the Defendant, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the crime is serious and the victim’s damage has not been recovered.
However, in full view of all the circumstances that led to the instant crime, means and results, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and pleadings, even if considering the aforementioned unfavorable circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant B is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable, even if it considers the aforementioned unfavorable conditions.
3. Conclusion.