전기통신사업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to depression, etc.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was deemed to have received medical treatment from a mental disorder due to the depression, scarcity, and scarcity, etc. after the instant crime. However, considering such circumstances, given the background of the instant crime, the method and method thereof, the Defendant’s attitude before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in the state of having lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.
subsection (b) of this section.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. Although it is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the Defendant’s living conditions are difficult, and the Defendant appears to receive mental treatment, etc., the act of selling mobile phone, such as the instant case, is highly likely to be abused for another serious crime by putting up the so-called “largephone,” the act of selling mobile phone in this case is actually used for business of lending illegal days, the Defendant has the history of punishing three times a fine, and the lower court appears to have already sentenced to a fine more reduced than that of the summary order by taking into account the favorable circumstances of the Defendant in the lower court, and there are other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, it is clear that the defendant's appeal is groundless. Thus, Article 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.