특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal in light of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as Defendant A’s age and character environment, relationship with victims, motive and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced Defendant A 14 years to imprisonment, even in light of the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal.
2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding Defendant B guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its holding. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the renunciation
In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as Defendant B’s age and character environment, relationship with victims, motive and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence of 14 years imprisonment with prison labor against Defendant B is extremely unfair, even considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.
3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of this case’s facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence