사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by a fine of 1,00,000 won.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) was entitled to phone call from G as referred to in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the criminal facts in this part”), but the above act was committed upon Defendant A’s request without any awareness of the criminal facts in this part. Thus, Defendant B did not have conspired to commit the criminal facts in this part with Defendant A, and even though Defendant B did not have the intent to obtain the criminal intent and the criminal intent to obtain the criminal facts in this part, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant B of this part of the criminal facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.
2. The crime of this case with respect to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is deemed to have been committed by deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant B by deceiving the victim, deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim, and taking into account the fact that the crime of this case is considerably poor in light of the method and content of the crime, etc., it is necessary to impose strict liability corresponding thereto on Defendant A.
I see that it is.
However, in full view of the following factors: (a) Defendant A made a confession of all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) Defendant A was the first offender who has no record of the instant crime; (c) the lower court paid KRW 30 million to the J who suffered substantial damage from the instant crime; and (d) the J does not want punishment against Defendant A by paying KRW 10 million in addition to the first instance judgment; and (c) other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant A’s age, sex behavior, motive and background of the environmental crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A is deemed unfair due to its failure.
Therefore, the defendant A's above assertion is justified.
3. Defendant B among the judgment below