beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee is as follows.
[Determinations of types 2 (10 million won or more, and less than 500 million won) [the types of frauds in the judgment are set based on the sum of profits, since each crime of frauds is concurrent crimes as shown in the judgment] / Where a person engaged in special sentencing intentionally commits a deceptive act, or where the degree of deceptive act is weak (the scope of recommendations and recommendations), [the scope of recommendations and recommendations] mitigation area, 10 months to six months to six months of imprisonment
B. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and that the first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the first instance judgment is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the fact that there is no attitude that the defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake, prior to the instant crime, the fact that the defrauded has no record of fraud, and the fact that the victim did not have any harm or damage to the victim of the instant crime, the circumstance and circumstance that did not have been considered in the victim’s trust cannot be considered.