사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, confiscation) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below is based on a systematic and systematic plan, and there is a very significant social harm, such as causing damage to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and thus there is a need for strict punishment. The defendant received a document file under the name of the Financial Services Commission from an accomplice in the name of the Financial Services Commission and printed it out, and received the money by presenting the above document as if the victim was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, and then delivered it to another accomplice. It is an act of receiving the money by defraudation from the victim to another accomplice. The crime of forging and uttering a public document is an act of causing the victim to ultimately deliver the money to the scaming organization. The degree of his participation is significant, and the crime of forging and uttering a public document is an act that damages the public trust of the public institution and encourages the general public, and it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant, considering the fact that the damage caused by the crime of this case is great.
However, there is no criminal history against the defendant, the defendant paid 70 million won out of the total amount of 99.6 million won with the victims, and the defendant agreed to do so, the defendant is not the leading person of the crime of Bosing in this case, but the defendant was found to have participated in the crime of this case in order to punish living expenses in the economically difficult situation, and the defendant returned all profits distributed by the crime of this case. The defendant denied his own crime until the court below, but the defendant led himself to the confession and misjudgments his crime in the trial, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are too inappropriate.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.