beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
A (Multiple-years of imprisonment) The sentence of the original court (three-years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
I misunderstanding of facts only caused G to give advice about investigation in the course of investigation in relation to the illegal loan brokerage business of G.
In collusion with G, A, etc., there is no fact that the head of the office has instigated the head of the investigation agency to make a false confession.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant
The fact that Defendant A recognized the entire crime of this case and reflected his mistake in depth, and that Defendant A agreed with some victims or deposited the amount of damage is favorable.
However, considering the frequency of the crime by sending letters to many and unspecified victims in a systematic manner through division of work with G, etc., and the number of victims and the amount of damage, etc., Defendant A, in collusion with G, etc., attempted to actively conceal their crimes on the ground of "bab president". Nevertheless, there is a need to actively punish them as crimes that make it difficult to discover substantial truth and interfere with the state's criminal justice function. Defendant A has the history of being sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence for imprisonment with prison labor, as well as punishment for a crime that violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act twice, Defendant A has been sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence for imprisonment with prison labor. Some victims want to be punished for Defendant A, and taking into account all the sentencing conditions such as Defendant A's age, character and conduct, environment, crime, motive, means and consequence, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
Defendant
Article 30 of the Criminal Code on the argument of mistake of facts about I.