전자금융거래법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months.
1. The sentencing of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It is an unfavorable sentencing condition under the following circumstances: (a) the number of the means of access transferred by the Defendants is considerably high; (b) the act of transferring the means of access is not sufficient to commit the act of singing crimes; and (c) the Defendants actually participated in the singing crimes.
In full view of the facts that the Defendants led to the confession of all of the instant offenses, and are against the Defendants, that the Defendants agreed with some victims, that there was an exemption from consideration of the circumstances of the instant offenses, that Defendant A agreed with the victim AM at the trial of the lower court, and that all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive leading to the instant offenses, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
B. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is judged as follows.
[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as those stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 49(4)2, Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the original judgment), Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)3 of the said Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of Article 49(3) of the said Act), Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)1 of the said Act (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in the original judgment), and Article 347(1) of the said Act.