beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.08.13 2020노985

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant E shall be reversed.

Defendant

E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

Defendant

A, B, and.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) the lower court’s punishment (i) imprisonment for four years and six months, and fine for 500,000 won; (ii) imprisonment for three years and six months; (iii) Defendant C: imprisonment for two years and six months; (iv) imprisonment for two years and six months; and (v) Defendant D: imprisonment for one year and six months; and (v) imprisonment for two years) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of Bophishing fraud is a crime committed in a systematic, planned, or intelligent manner against many unspecified persons, and it is not easy to recover from damage, and it is highly harmful to society and economic aspects, such as having a negative impact on financial institutions, and thus requires strict punishment. The total amount of damage caused by the instant Bophishing crime is not more than KRW 156.4 million, and the fact that the victims, except Defendant D, failed to take a letter from the victims or to recover damage, are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

Furthermore, Defendant A had drawn up Defendant B while performing the role of supplying the means of access to the Chinese Bosing Organization; Defendant A had the same gambling record; Defendant D and E had transferred the means of access to the means of access and had been suspended twice due to the suspicion of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; ② Defendant B again committed the instant fraud even after having been suspended on two occasions; ② Defendant B did not have much the amount of fraud against V; and Defendant C had drawn up Defendant C while performing the role of soliciting a person to be used for the commission of the criminal act of Bosing; Defendant C had the same criminal history; and even upon having been sentenced, Defendant C had committed the instant criminal act again during the period of suspension of execution; ③ Defendant D and E did not simply provide the means of access, but rather have drawn up the means of access to the instant criminal act; and ④ Defendant D again committed the instant criminal act during the period of suspension of execution without being aware of the past having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment; and ④ Defendant D had the means of access.