사기등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation 38,200,000 won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The crime of scaming on the grounds of appeal by both parties consists of organized crimes, which cause serious damage to many victims and make it difficult to recover damage difficult, so severe punishment is required. The Defendant has played an essential and core role in the crime of this case by misrepresenting his employees of the Financial Supervisory Service to receive the direct victims or the money obtained by defraudation, etc., and the Defendant has committed a large amount of crime, such as: (a) the number of times the Defendant was involved in the crime; (b) the amount of defraudation is more than KRW 120 million; (c) the Defendant committed a crime of scaming even after being investigated by the police; and (d) the Defendant committed a crime of scaming a vehicle in his name for the crime; and (c) the Defendant has committed a crime of scaming at night; and (d) the Defendant has committed an act that greatly reflected the trust by taking money from his employment in case of a crime of scambling at night.
However, the fact that the defendant recognizes his criminal act, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, and the fact that the victim B is seeking the defendant's preference is favorable to the defendant.
In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).