범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
2. The judgment of the court below shows that the defendant is detained in prison for six months or more at the court below, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the previous conviction punished once due to a fine for a crime of this species.
The Defendant appears to have been involved in the crime upon the request of G, who was detained and living with the Defendant, and the co-defendant B of the lower court leased his own mother X’s account to the Defendant and then arbitrarily used the money deposited in the passbook. The instant crime was revealed upon the Defendant’s complaint under the suspicion of embezzlement. However, there is room for partial consideration in the process of the crime or the investigation.
However, from 209 to 7 years, the Defendant pretended to acquire and dispose of part of the proceeds of the multi-stage fraud crime committed by G living together with the Defendant, which was about KRW 29.5 billion, and due to this, the victims of fraud were unable or impossible to recover the proceeds of the crime or recover the damage.
Nevertheless, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the said money was not aware of criminal proceeds up to the party’s trial, and did not seriously reflect on his/her mistake.
In light of the fact that the defendant is found to have pretended to acquire and dispose of criminal proceeds, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that the amount exceeds 300 million won.
In full view of such circumstances and other conditions of all the sentencing as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the offense, amount of profits acquired by the Defendant, relationship between the Defendant and G, and circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.