사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the defendant recognized all the facts of the crime, thereby against the mistake; (b) the victim H and I repaid money above the money obtained by deception to the victim H and I; and (c) the amount equivalent to the money obtained by deception to the victimO was repaid; and (d) the defendant supported by his family while engaged in agriculture and therefore the period of detention is long and the family members are faced with difficult circumstances.
2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) the amount acquired by the victim from the victims exceeds KRW 180 million; (b) the victim H and I was recovered considerably from the damage; and (c) the defendant repaid the amount acquired by deceit to the victim O was already reflected in the court below; (d) there was no special change in circumstances that may be otherwise considered in the trial; (b) the defendant was punished several times for the same crime; (c) on June 13, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. on December 24, 2008; and (d) on February 12, 2009, the remaining term of the punishment was expired; and (d) the victim H and I committed the instant fraud during the repeated crime; and (e) the victim H and I committed any other crime in the course of the repeated crime; and (e) considering all the records and the conditions of the punishment specified in the instant case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance after the crime, there is no reason for the above assertion of appeal.
3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, in the summary of the evidence of the lower judgment, the “police statement report to H and I” is clearly erroneous in office in the “police statement report to I”. As such, it is corrected to correct it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.