사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for six months, for Defendant B, for six months, for Defendant C, for six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants (for defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, defendant B: 8 months of imprisonment, defendant C: 8 months of imprisonment, defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment, defendant D: 10 months of imprisonment, and defendant E: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of fraud of this case is an act of taking part in the crime of fraud of this case as a person who introduces the above tenant in the crime of this case by abusing the "house leasing loan system" for the stabilization of the residence of homeless workers, thereby seriously impeding the operation of the above system, deprived of the persons who need the funds of the actual lease, and ultimately, in the case where the damage is not recovered due to such a crime, the loss is very severe and highly likely to be covered by the national tax. The defendants are the persons who introduce the above tenant to H who is the false tenant or the inner loan bromoer. The defendants committed the crime of this case in a systematic and planned manner, even though they committed the crime of this case, there was a history of punishment three times including the fact that the defendant Eul was sentenced to one suspended sentence once for the same crime, the defendant C has been punished nine times including imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, and the fact that the defendant Eul was punished nine times as a fine for the same kind of crime, and the defendant E is punished as a fine for the same kind of crime.
However, the defendants' confession of the crime of this case and the profits acquired by the defendants did not reach the half of the amount of deceitation, or did not reach the amount of the profits gained by the crime of this case (in the case of defendant A, the acquisition of 15 million won, but living together).
I appears to have used it, and in the case of Defendant B, it seems that Defendant C acquired 12 million won, and Defendant C appears to have obtained indirect benefits, such as insurance coverage, and Defendant D, 2.