대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
The seized opon.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court sentenced to Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant D (a year of imprisonment, Defendant B, and Defendant D: each fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period.
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion is that: (a) the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the following factors: (b) the period of the crime is very long; (c) there are considerable interest rates received in excess of the statutory interest rate; and (d) the fact that there was a history of punishment for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant. However, the lower court’s sentencing is somewhat unreasonable, based on the following circumstances: (a) there was an agreement between certain victims and some victims before the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (b) the victims did not want the punishment; (c) there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine; and (d) there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine; (b) there was no other reason of punishment in the course of the record and oral proceedings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, motive leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime.
B. According to the records, the lower court’s determination as to Defendant B and Defendant D’s assertion was determined in consideration of various sentencing reasons, including the following: (i) the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the process and method of the crime; (ii) the number of offenses is repented and contradictory to each other; (iii) the degree of participation is relatively insignificant; and (iv) there is no record of having been punished for the same kind of crime; and (iii) there is no record of having been punished in excess of the fine. (ii) There is no particular change in the conditions of the sentencing compared with the lower court; and (iv) considering the various sentencing reasons revealed during the pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and thus, does not seem to have exceeded
3. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.