beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment of one year and six months, suspension of execution of one year and three years, Defendant B: imprisonment of three months, suspension of execution of one year) is deemed to be too unfasible and unfair.
2. According to the judgment ex officio (Defendant B), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the records show that Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on April 3, 2015 to imprisonment with prison labor on the grounds of fraud, etc. in Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court on April 3, 2015, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on November 26, 2015. The crime of this case against Defendant B and each of the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive on November 26, 2015 are related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act
3. As to the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A, the defendant acquired several means of access as Bosing staff, acquired property benefits or acquired money from several victims, acquired money, and the fraud amount is considerable. The so-called Bosing fraud crime is not only organized and planned but also organized by the law of criminal acts against the financial and social weak, but also amounts to many victims within the nation, thereby causing many victims and members of the society to be defeit state agencies or financial institutions, and as a result, it has a significant adverse effect on the trust relationship of the whole society, and thus, its nature is very poor and its social criticism is also very high.
However, the defendant confessions the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, restores the damage caused by the use of computers, etc., and smoothly agrees with the victims.