사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The defendant pays 64,858,120 won to the applicant through deception.
The court below's punishment (three years of imprisonment) against the defendant in summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant, exists in the area unique to the first instance court regarding the determination of sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant and unfavorable circumstances, determined the sentence, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects each of the instant crimes, and that the defendant was the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, was already reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no change in the special sentencing condition that can change the sentence of the lower court.
Each of the crimes of this case is an act of taking part in the Defendant’s withdrawal and delivery of cash in the crime of Bosing. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, investigation agency and court’s attitude in the criminal investigation agency and court, the nature of the crime, the victims’ recovery of damage, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
According to the judgment of the court below as to the application for compensation order and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the defendant's name is infinite.