The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
A Imprisonment of two years, Defendant B and C, respectively.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (the Defendant A: imprisonment of three years, confiscation, Defendant B and C: one year and six months, and one confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below is that each of the crimes of this case is a financial fraud crime in which many and unspecified persons are committed as a object of the crime of single scam, and is planned and organized. Since the scope of damage is limited and it is difficult to recover damage, the crime is very poor in terms of its nature, and even if the role of the participants or personal gain is not significant in order to eradicate the serious social problem, it is necessary to strictly punish them. Since the act of cash withdrawal remittance by the defendants is an essential part for each of the crimes of this case, it cannot be deemed that the responsibility is less unfavorable to the defendants.
However, the defendants recognized all of the crimes of this case and against their mistake, the defendants did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the defendants agreed with victim F, P, I, Q, and the defendants deposited the amount equivalent to the amount for the victim J, U, R,O, H, and T and agreed with the victim N in addition to the deposit of the amount for the victim J, U,O, H, and T, and the victim U expressed his intent that he does not want the punishment of the defendant A. In full view of the above facts, the defendant Gap deposited the total amount of KRW 30 million for G, J, R,O, H, H, and T, equity of punishment with the same and similar cases, the age and family environment of the defendants, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendants is somewhat unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendants' appeal is with merit.