여신전문금융업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence (4 million won in penalty) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The defendant appears to have led to the confession of the crime of this case and to reflect his mistake, and the defendant lent the name of the chain store to the first place for the purpose of committing the crime.
The fact that it is difficult to see is favorable to the defendant.
However, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been determined by fully considering these favorable circumstances, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may newly consider the sentencing in the appellate court.
In particular, the result of the crime is not good in that the period of lending the name of the store by the defendant exceeds one year and four months, and that the lending of the name of the store by the defendant was possible to prevent B from committing a crime related to the card-based tin.
In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and theories on changes, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too large and goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, even considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.