사기
Of the defendant's case of the judgment below, the part of the 2019 Highest317 case and the attached list of crimes (2) of the 2019 Highest805 case are annexed hereto.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (each of the crimes in the 2019 order317 cases, each crime in the 2019 order order319 order order and each crime in the 2019 order order805 annexed crime list (2) No. 1 through 28: Imprisonment with prison labor, each of the crimes in the annexed crime list (29,300 order order) No. 29,30 in the 2019 order order805 order order, and the crime in the annexed crime list (2) in the 2019 order order 1301 order order
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below on the part of the case 2019Da317 and the part of the case 2019Kadan805 is not smaller than 40 million won per annum of the annexed Crime List (2) Nos. 1 through 28 of the annexed Crime List No. 2019Gadan805, but many victims have occurred; the defendant has been punished several times due to the same fraud; the defendant was detained in the crime of fraud; the defendant was released from detention due to the cancellation of detention; however, the defendant committed a second offense for 4 days after the release of detention; however, the defendant is against each crime of this part; the defendant has recovered most of the damage caused by each crime of this part at the court below; the victim J, D, AX, and AX were additionally agreed or recovered; the equitableness with the case in which the judgment has become final and conclusive; the sentencing factors of the defendant should be considered at the same time; the defendant's age, character and behavior, the background, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case; and the various conditions of the sentencing are deemed unfair.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.
B. In comparison with the first instance court’s determination on the part of the annexed Table 29,30 No. 29,00 per annum (2) and the part of the 2019 order1301 case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing where it does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, an unreasonable sentencing is alleged by the Defendant.