사기등
All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (one year and six years, and one year and six years, and one year and one year, respectively) is too unreasonable.
B. Each sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant B is against the recognition of all the instant crimes; Defendant B’s prior to the instant crimes, with the exception of a fine imposed once prior to the instant crimes, having no specific criminal record, etc. are conditions for sentencing favorable to Defendant B.
Meanwhile, Defendant B’s act of taking part in the Defendant’s commission of the commission of the phishing crime and not less than the liability for such act. The fact that Defendant B’s commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the phishing crime is more than KRW 50 million, but the damage was not completely recovered until the trial was held, etc. is an unfavorable sentencing condition against Defendant B.
In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant B’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unfair, and thus, all of the aforementioned unfair arguments regarding each of the above sentencing by Defendant B, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are not acceptable.
B. Defendant C is against the Defendant C’s recognition of all of the instant crimes at the time of the trial, and the fact that Defendant C had no record of punishment exceeding the fine prior to the instant crime is a favorable sentencing condition for Defendant C.
Meanwhile, Defendant C’s participation in the role of delivering the cash card necessary for withdrawal of the amount of damage to Defendant C’s crime, which was organized, to the withdrawal book, and the liability is not less than that of Defendant C, and even though the amount of damage to Defendant C’s part was at least KRW 10 million, it did not completely recover from damage to the trial.