사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.
Defendant 1, No. 5, seized No. 1, 5.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment against the Defendants (e., imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of two years and six months; confiscation of two years and six months) are too unreasonable.
2. The Defendants’ respective crimes of this case are so-called “scaming crimes,” which are the so-called “scaming crimes,” and are highly harmful to society, such as planned and organized against many and unspecified persons, and degradation of trust among members of society. Therefore, the Defendants who participated in the crime are in need of strict punishment, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendants, the defendants do not want the punishment of the defendants by mutual agreement with the victims, the defendants paid all the amount of damages to the victims since they were in the trial. Defendant A did not have any record of punishment for the same crime within the past 20 years, and Defendant B was the first offender in favor of the defendants.
In addition to the above various circumstances, in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, environment, background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s respective punishment against the Defendants is deemed to be too unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is with merit.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment for the crime: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and
1. Defendants from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.