beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B (excluding the part on a compensation order) shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for a year.
Reasons
1. The court below found Defendant A not guilty and convicted the remainder of the facts charged. The court below found Defendant A guilty of the fraud that “the defrauded acquired a total of KRW 35,214,570 from the victim insurance company.”
In this regard, only the defendant A appealed the guilty part, and since the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal part, the acquittal part was separated and finalized as it is.
In addition, the court below dismissed all the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the rejection portion is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the Defendants.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a two and a half years of imprisonment, and a one-year imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentence (e.g., a two and a half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The lower court determined Defendant A’s punishment as above by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances to Defendant A, taking into account the circumstances favorable to Defendant A.
Defendant
A In the appellate trial, all of the crimes of this case were acknowledged, but it is against the court below's age, environment, background and result of the crime, etc., including these circumstances, considering the various sentencing conditions revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Defendant
A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.
B. Defendant B’s crime of this case is that Defendant B repeatedly obtained a total of KRW 118,316,186 from victims during a considerable period of time, and there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the method, period, damage amount, etc. of the crime.
Such an insurance fraud crime is reasonable.