beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant
A, B, and C.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (in case of Defendant A: imprisonment of two years, Defendant B, C, and D: Imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A, B, and C’s unfair argument of sentencing: (a) was favorable to the Defendants; (b) the Defendants recognized all the instant crimes in favor of them; (c) Defendants A and C have no record of committing any crime; and (d) Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment for the same type of crime; and (c) the Defendants’ personal gain was not much much than the amount of fraud through the entire instant crime; and (b) the instant crime was committed under unfavorable circumstances in terms of the fact that the workplace skill development training expenses are refunded by means of unlawful means, such as proxy test, forgery program operation, etc., and thereby de facto shapes the workplace skill development training program system and making the State financial poor; (d) the Defendants participated in the instant crime over a long period of time as U’s officers; and (e) the amount obtained by the defrauded was determined by the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee with respect to Defendant A and B, within the scope of recommendations given to Defendant C, respectively.
On the other hand, Defendant A deposited KRW 10 million for the victim on April 5, 2016, which was after the conclusion of the oral argument at the trial at the court, and Defendant A, B, and C, compared to the restitution of the amount equivalent to KRW 2.9 billion as of April 30, 2015 at the court below in comparison with the amount of damage incurred by the instant crime, Defendant A, B, and C, the court below needs to reduce the sentence of the court below on February 28, 2016, when considering the fact that the amount equivalent to KRW 4.4 billion was recovered as of February 28, 2016.
The argument is asserted.
However, the amount of the defendant A's deposit is less than the amount of damage caused by the defendant's act.
In addition, the amount recovered out of the amount of damage shall be the training fee that the director of the childcare center has received unfairly.