전자금융거래법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court’s sentence (3 million won in penalty) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by lending a approaching medium in return for monetary promise to the Defendant
The above crime not only interferes with transparency in financial transactions and disturbs financial order, but also requires strict punishment in consideration of the fact that the above-mentioned access media has been used for another crime with great social harm, such as Bosing, etc.
Furthermore, the access media that the Defendant lent was actually used for licensing.
However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by taking into account all the above circumstances, and it is difficult to find any change in the sentencing conditions in the past.
In the above circumstances, the defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against himself;