beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.09.18 2020노659

사기등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined each punishment against the Defendants by taking into account the following circumstances favorable to the Defendants, including: (a) the instant crime infringes on trust formed in the employment relationship or trust relationship; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the amount of damage is not sufficient; (d) the Defendants are fully aware of the crime; (b) the Defendants return profits gained from the crime to the victim company; (c) the victim company revoked the complaint against the Defendants; (d) Defendant B was the first offender; and (e) there is no criminal history exceeding the fine prescribed by Defendant C; and (e) the Defendants were serving

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider sentencing after the sentence, and the crime of this case, including the above circumstances, committed by the court below, was committed in the absence of the fact that the defendants engaged in the document destruction business have actually destroyed merchandise coupons and important documents, and used them as false documents, and there is a high possibility of criticism. The defendants seems to have been clearly aware of the illegality at the time of committing the crime of this case. In addition, even if the defendants were to have been aware of the illegality at the time of committing the crime of this case, they do not seem to be unfair because each sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ conclusion is as follows.