전자금융거래법위반
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. According to the records of the judgment on the appeal by the defendant, the defendant is found to have failed to submit the reason for appeal within 20 days, which is the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, even after being served with a notice of receipt of records of trial on May 12, 2017 after being dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, and no reason for appeal by the defendant is
B. Upon examining the record, there is a reason to ex officio investigation under the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act even if there is a reason to do so.
No such circumstance may be found.
2. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal
A. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (for four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.
B. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view, to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the following factors, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s new sentencing data not submitted in the appellate court’s trial.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
3. The appeal by the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit, and the appeal by the defendant is by decision pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.