전기통신금융사기피해방지및피해금환급에관한특별법위반등
The judgment below
The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.
Seized evidence No. 1 shall be forfeited from the defendant.
The judgment of the court below.
1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (a sentence of one year and six months, and confiscation), the Defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, D and E, who are co-offenders, paid damages to the victims, and the victims did not wish to punish the defendant, and there is no record of crime exceeding the punishment of the defendant or suspended execution for the same crime.
On the other hand, as a new type of crime resulting from the development of information and communication technology, the victims have suffered considerable mental symptoms in addition to property damage, and the victims have been involved in the phishing crime which causes side effects that undermine trust in the overall society. In the case of the phishing crime, the role of the steering staff is merely part of the total crime, and the role of the steering staff in the case of the phishing crime seems to have been minor. However, if the role is not properly performed as an essential element for the execution of the entire crime, the whole crime cannot be committed. In light of the characteristics of the organized crime, even though the defendant was delivered access media and delivered cash to the organization after receiving access media, and even if it was not significant in the portion of the entire crime, the degree of punishment for the defendant is not less unfavorable to the defendant.
The defendant's punishment against D and E in the above circumstances and the public offender D and E (nine months of imprisonment), compared to D and E (ten months of imprisonment).