beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant committed the instant crime using trust relationship with the victim, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the period and method of the instant crime.
It seems that the additional damage has not been recovered even if it has reached the trial.
The judgment below
There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, in case where "Article 347 (1) (Fraud) of the Criminal Act" is obtained by deception against several victims of "Article 347 (1) (Fraud) of the Criminal Act" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court below in Part 8 of the judgment of the court below, each of which is "Article 347 (1) (Fraud) of the Criminal Act, and the criminal intent is a single crime and even if the method of crime is the same, each victim's legal interest is independent, so it cannot be understood as a single crime, and a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6130 delivered on December 28,