beta
Text
Defendant
C, D and prosecutor’s appeals against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C and D’s punishment (a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor(s) of the lower court’s sentence (as to the Defendants, B, C, and D: each fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant E, and F: each fine of KRW 3 million, confiscation, and Defendant G: The amount of fine of KRW 1 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. As to each of the defendants C, D, and prosecutor's arguments of unfair sentencing, where the Fisheries Cooperatives Act prohibits acts of donation, such as offering money, etc. in the election of executives, and the provisions of strict punishment are provided, considering the nature of the public interest of the fisheries cooperatives, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendants who provided money and received it.
However, considering the fact that Defendants B, C, and E appear to have recognized their mistake and reflect it, there is no history of punishment, and Defendants D, F, and G did not have the record of having been punished or has not been punished exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime. In particular, Defendant E voluntarily reported his own crime, and favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances and result of the instant crime, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the amount provided or received by the Defendants, and the amount provided or received by the Defendants, and the balance of punishment among the Defendants, and the balance of punishment among the Defendants, and that the Defendants cannot be an officer of fisheries cooperatives for four years due to the fine in the instant case, it is unfair that the lower court’s punishment against Defendants C and D is too unreasonable.
Inasmuch as the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable, Defendant C, D, and prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.
3. Accordingly, the appeal against the Defendants by Defendant C, D, and the Prosecutor is with merit.