beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for one year and six months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Considering the fact that Defendant A both recognized the instant crime and is in violation of the depth, that Defendant A made an endeavor to borrow a letter and pay damages to the victim by informing the victim of all the before and after the instant crime, that the defrauded used the money by Defendant B, that there is almost no amount used by Defendant A, and that there is a final judgment that became final and conclusive in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, imprisonment (one year) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Considering the fact that Defendant B paid money to the victim more than the amount acquired by Defendant B from the victim, the fact that Defendant B obtained the nearest money of KRW 100 million to the P who was introduced by Defendant A, and caused the instant crime by contingency, and that Defendant B made efforts to repay the damage in difficult economic circumstances, the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment is based on a large amount exceeding KRW 200 million, and the fraud of money by means of the victim's trust who has continuously invested in the defendants is disadvantageous to the sentencing. However, in the case of the defendant A, when the judgment on the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act becomes final and conclusive, the equity should be taken into account in the case of the defendant A, the most of the acquired amount is used by the defendant B, and the defendant A does not enjoy any profit therefrom; in the case of the defendant B, the considerable portion of the money acquired by the victim H is repaid by the victim B; the victim was punished by the victim and the victim did not want to be punished by the defendants; the defendant B is punished by a fine only once received by gambling; and the defendant A is also punished by the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the crime of this case and Article 37 of the Criminal Act.