사기
1. The part of the judgment below regarding the Defendants is reversed.
2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year;
except that this shall not apply.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, defendant C: one year and one year of suspended execution of imprisonment, two years of a community service order, and one hundred and sixty hours of a community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Defendant B committed the instant crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which transferred 5,500,00 won means of access, such as a 5,50,000 won, by using a corporation (the name holder of the business registration, who is not related to the Defendant, is difficult to be exposed to the Defendant even if used for the crime) including I, a corporation (the name holder of the business registration is a person who is not related to the Defendant) and
In addition, the defendant received a proposal from the name unclaimed winners residing in China and gave his direction to Co-defendant K, etc. in the court below's decision in Korea.
As above, the Defendant provided K with the tool for committing the fraud of “Singing”, and as a result, it would facilitate the commission of the crime of Bosing fraud from the damage amount to KRW 0,000,00, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime are not sufficient.
In addition to the above circumstances, the lower court sentenced the Defendant imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant knew or could have known that his passbook would be provided; and (b) the Defendant did not make efforts to recover the damage of the victim of the crime of Bophishing, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months; and (c) it is difficult to accept the sentence.
The above circumstances cited by the court below are, in fact, an element of the crime of Bophishing fraud or an appropriate sentencing data for the defendant of the crime of fraud, inappropriate to regard the defendant who was prosecuted only for the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as the sentencing data of the defendant.
Such circumstances are a separate fraud.