특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case that he acquired money from the victim by citing a false testimony of the construction site and the worker, and determined the punishment by considering the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the amount of damage was 60 million won; (b) the damaged amount was defective; (c) the victim was able to obtain a severe punishment; (d) the victim was able to make a vindication that it is difficult to obtain the victim’s implied consent; and (e) the proceeds of the crime was reverted to the defendant; and (e) the actual amount of the damage is not less than the amount of fraud; and (e) the fact that the criminal records and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act
B. Taking into account the following circumstances cited by the lower court in the grounds of appeal: (a) the instant crime committed by the Defendant appears to constitute a living penalty; (b) the Defendant’s use of cerebral blood and the occurrence of business damage appears to have been caused; and (c) the victim appears to be liable to a certain degree of damage, it is difficult to deem that the sentence determined by the lower court is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.
(3) The grounds of appeal and the grounds of appeal submitted by the public defender prepared and submitted by the public defender and submitted by the defendant directly through the public defender include the statement to the effect that they seem to deny the fraud, deception and causal relationship, but according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, such as the J's statement at the court below, the charges of this case, such as the scope of acquiring the defendant, deception and causal relationship, are sufficiently convicted).
However, the gist of evidence of the judgment of the court below is clear that the “each judgment” was omitted in the part of the “previous conviction” in the judgment of the court below, and thus, the rules on criminal procedure.