전기통신사업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
Application of Statutes
The proviso to Article 42 shall be referred to as "the proviso to Article 42 from among repeated offenders."
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake; and (b) the Defendant informed that the Internet phone opened through the Defendant after the instant crime was committed was used for scaming; (c) the total number of 21 staff members arrested and sent via the Internet phone call system to an overseas scaming organization; (d) the Defendant was also informed of the distribution organization of scambling and assisted the arrest of three staff members; (b) the Defendant did not obtain any profit from the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant did not receive any profit from the instant crime; and (d) the instant crime was committed on December 21, 2018, with regard to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to which the judgment became final and conclusive; and (e) the Defendant should take
However, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by opening a 100 foot office necessary for opening the Internet phone call and transmitting it to the scaming organization. In light of the result of the crime, such as the occurrence of damage, which is close to a total of 600 million won from 46 victims, on a total of 131 occasions, which was used for the Internet telephone machine opened by the Defendant, the crime of this case is not very complicated. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for an indecent act by force at the Busan High Court on September 8, 2017, and was repeated during the period of the execution of the sentence, and again committed the crime of this case. In order to eradicate the scaming crime, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed, other criminal records, and there was a need to strictly establish the same crime as the Defendant’s crime of this case, such as the Defendant’s opening of a large phone.