beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, C and Prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: ① Defendant A’s imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months; ② Defendant B’s imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months; ③ Defendant C’s imprisonment of 1 year and 1 year and 8 months; and Defendant A and C’s imprisonment of 1 year and 1 year and 1 year and 1 year and 8; and the prosecutor asserts that the above sentence against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.
Judgment
The Defendants took part in the organization of the Bophishing crime, thereby deceiving victims from China to telephone.
The number of damage victims and the amount of damage shall be as follows:
The lower court, based on the following circumstances, determined a sentence of KRW 32, KRW 32, KRW 208, KRW 193,334, Defendant A, KRW 198, KRW 481,50, Defendant A, and KRW 198, KRW 198, KRW 500 of the charges charged, which included the total amount of damage
The favorable circumstances: The defendants recognized all the crimes of this case; the defendants did not have the record of punishment for the same kind of crime; the profits actually acquired by the defendants in the amount of fraud seems to be excessive; in the case of the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul's minor children who should be raised as the defendant Eul are three children: the crime of this case is organized and planned, and there is a serious social harm to the victims, and the defendant's act of deception against the victims directly by taking part in the crime of this case. Since all the defendants are in China as a counselor, it is not easy to take part in the act of deception against the victims, the degree of participation is not easy; since the defendants are taking part in the act of deception against the victims; since there is a large number of victims caused by the crime of this case and there is no criminal history of punishment for the defendants being discharged by the defendants compared to the total amount of damage. The defendant Eul is a special larceny in 206, and the defendant Eul's protective disposition for the juvenile in this case is a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2007.