특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case is highly likely to be committed in light of the following: (a) the crime of this case was committed by acquiring money from the injured person under the pretext of investment money on the ground that the interest at a short-term rate was paid in advance and the trust company secured the principal amount clearly through the trust company; (b) the amount was large to KRW 3.5 billion; and (c) the victim’s forgery or uttering of private documents, such as a gold-management agency contract, which is an important factor in the decision on investment; and (d) the method of committing the crime is very secret.
In light of the relationship between the defendant and C, the actual role of the defendant contributed to the crime of this case, the recognition of the defendant, and the profits expected to have been anticipated to the defendant in the future due to the crime of this case, the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case and the degree of responsibility therefor are somewhat minor.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, the defendant acquired a considerable amount of money due to the actual crime of this case, and if the victim did not request G to suspend the execution of funds, the amount of damage would have increased further.
Nevertheless, the defendant still shows an urgent attitude to reduce his responsibility while he is merely merely engaged in a passive work according to the instruction of a private person C.
In addition, even if the defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment for fraud even before, he again committed the crime of fraud in this case even though he had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor.
Until now, the victims have not been able to recover damages properly.
However, the Defendant reversed the previous argument that denied his participation in the instant crime for the first time, thereby recognizing the liability for the crime of this case, and the victim also expressed his intent not to punish the Defendant, and wanting to challenge the Defendant.