사기등
1. The part of the lower judgment against the remaining Defendants except Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
B.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (the imprisonment of three years and six months against the Defendants A and confiscation, the imprisonment of one year and one year against the Defendants A, the confiscation and confiscation, the imprisonment of eight months against the Defendants C and one year against the Defendants C, the imprisonment of one year and two months against the Defendant F, the imprisonment of one year and two months against the Defendant F and the confiscation, the imprisonment of two years against the Defendant G and the confiscation, and the imprisonment of ten months against the Defendant H and confiscation) are too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A shows an attitude that Defendant A expressed in contrast to the time of committing the instant crime, and most criminal proceeds of the instant crime appear to have been acquired by accomplices who are in China. The profits that Defendant A directly acquired with money in the name of the commission, and the amount of the profits that Defendant A directly acquired, does not seem to be much high, and Defendant A did not have any history of criminal punishment exceeding the previous fine, which is favorable to Defendant A.
However, Defendant A’s crime of this case was involved in a systematic Bophishing crime against many unspecified persons. The crime of this case is a malicious crime that breaks the foundation of the trust society because it is not easy to detect a criminal organization and most damages were not recovered. The crime of this case was committed in short period from January 14, 2013 to February 27, 2013, which resulted in damage of KRW 368,311,162 in total against at least 20 victims, and it is not very good in light of the period of damage and the scale of damage. Defendant A actively attracts Defendant B and related persons, Defendant C, who was the employee of Kap Pon, and Defendant D, one of his own employees, to which he was involved, and Defendant D, to which he was responsible, so that it can be seen that the crime of this case was committed in short period of time.