logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노930
여신전문금융업법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A’s Defendant committed the instant crime by intimidation of a person with Chinese nationality in his name, the Defendant repented his mistake, and did not have any profit gained by the instant crime, and there was no history of punishment in Korea, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B did not attract a criminal act from the beginning, took part in the method to see the network, and that the degree of his fault is insignificant, and that the Defendant repented his mistake, and reflects it, the punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, method and frequency of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, and family relationship, and the sentencing reasons of the lower judgment, based on a comparison of the reasons for sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable even considering the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the degree of role sharing may be deemed to be somewhat weak compared to Defendant A who installed a CCTV camera and a card reproduction device by directly transmitting it. However, Defendant A, who installed a mixed card reproduction equipment, etc., took part in the crime by notifying the Defendant of the content of the crime and having the principal offender, and Defendant A, at the time of installing a card reproduction, etc. in ATM device room, shared the content of the installation by informing the Defendant of the situation at the time of installing the card reproduction, etc., and the Defendant shared the content of the installation by informing him of the situation. The multiple criminal acts of this case are very poor as a type of crime, and these types of crimes are good faith.

arrow