사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below rejected the application for compensation of the applicant, and since the applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, the part of the court below's rejection of the above application for compensation in the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the trial
In addition, the court below dismissed the prosecution concerning the larceny of each of the charges in this case on the grounds of the revocation of the prosecution, and sentenced the remainder of the charges to be convicted. Since only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment below, the dismissal of the prosecution in this case is separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the scope of
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.
2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant is both aware of and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant has no criminal records prior to the instant case.
However, in light of the background and methods of each of the crimes in this case, the number of crimes, and the amount of fraud, etc., the crime is bad, and the victim B suffered serious economic damage, such as being a bad credit holder and carrying out individual rehabilitation procedures, and the mental suffering therefrom seems to have been considerable, and the damage has not been recovered until now even though eight years have passed since the damage occurred, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as specified in the pleadings in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are too excessive to the extent that the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.