사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable (four years of imprisonment with prison labor) (the Defendant withdrawn the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts at the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance court). 2. The Defendant’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant was recognized in the trial of the first instance, and his mistake is divided by recognizing all of the crimes in the trial of the lower court.
After receiving a loan or investment money from the victims, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million under the pretext of interest, profit, etc., and the actual amount of profit gained by the Defendant through the instant crime is less than the amount obtained by deceit.
Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for the same crime in Korea.
However, on the other hand, the defendant acquired a large amount of money from five victims to 685 million won in total over several times for a period exceeding one year under the pretext of the export or exchange business of cosmetics.
The amount of damage that has not been recovered until the trial of the party is reasonable, and the defendant has not taken any particular measure for recovery.
In addition, taking account of various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for and degree of deception, etc., the court below's above sentence is too unreasonable and it does not determine that it is unfair for the court below to impose the sentence. [On the other hand, the court below erred by failing to reduce the minimum limit of the recommended sentence even though it is the case where the type of concurrent crimes increases in one step as a result of summing up the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee in applying the sentencing guidelines to this case. However, even according to the mitigated sentencing guidelines, this case is recommended from two to six years [the basic area of punishment [the general fraud [the ....5 billion won, but less than 5 billion won)] of the case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.