beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact-finding and legal principles, Defendant C, etc., upon recognizing the fact that Defendant C, etc. offered Cheongju-si Office M&D 401 and 402 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) as collateral to Defendant A, etc., and that the loan of this case was little value as collateral, Defendant C introduced the loan of this case to Defendant A, etc., it can be acknowledged that Defendant C conspired to commit the instant fraud with other Defendants.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant C and other Defendants on the grounds that the conspiracy relation cannot be recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake and fraud.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing, the fact that Defendant A recognized the instant crime and reflects it, and that there is a family member to support and consider equity in case of judgment concurrently with the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Public Crows), which became final and conclusive.
However, in light of the circumstances, contents, and methods, etc., the crime of this case is not very good, and the amount of damage is a large amount, and Defendant A appears to have sold rice and received profits from the rice from the victim LF, and it is deemed that Defendant A had the largest profits from the crime of this case. The fact that Defendant A did not agree with the victim and did not take proper measures for recovery of damage is disadvantageous.
In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for crime, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentencing conditions and the punishment differently from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable.