사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The defendant shall pay 1,400,000 won to the applicant for compensation by deceit.
3.2
The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, through the long-term period from July 2013 to September 2014, 34 victims, acquired game items equivalent to KRW 30 million; (b) in the process, the Defendant forged the certificate of transfer issued by the financial institution to the victims and exercises it to the victims; and (c) the part of damage was recovered, etc., the sentence of 3 years of suspended execution (Probation, community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable for a year of imprisonment sentenced by the court below.
In light of the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate, and it is not unreasonable to deem that the sentence imposed by the court below is unreasonable, considering the following circumstances: (a) the defendant is against the defendant's living in prison for three months; (b) only two times the punishment was imposed by a fine; (c) the defendant has no record of being punished by the same kind of crime; (d) the defendant has repaid 19 persons among 34 victims with the damage of KRW 158 million; and (e) the defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment; (e) the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc.
(1) The prosecutor argues that the court below's sentence is too weak even if the defendant did not add the community service order while rendering a suspended sentence, but the court below added the probation and the community service order for 120 hours while rendering a suspended sentence to the defendant. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is recognized that the applicant for compensation sustained damages of KRW 1,40,000 due to the fraudulent act in this case. Thus, the court below ordered the defendant to compensate for the above money to the applicant for compensation under Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and ordered the applicant for compensation to provisionally execute the above compensation order under Article 3