beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and divided his mistake, and that the Defendant did not seem to have committed the instant crime under a conclusive recognition of the substance and appearance of the instant crime, and that the Defendant was directly involved in withdrawal of approximately KRW 4,320,000 out of the victim D’s damage amount of KRW 10,000,000, and that the Defendant did not have a criminal record.
However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant involved in cash withdrawal in the body-sing and camping criminal organization and keeping 15 physical cards in the name of a third party, and by deceiving 12 million won in total from three victims, and the crime of this case is not committed in light of the methods and contents of the crime.
It is necessary to strictly punish the phishing crime, such as the instant case, because it is difficult to crack down because the method of crime is close and organized, and its scope of damage is weak and its structural characteristics are not easy to recover from damage.
In particular, the Defendant was aware that he was involved in the commission of the fraud of the relevant criminal organization as his withdrawal, or committed the instant crime for his own economic interest, even though there were many circumstances that could recognize it.
In addition to the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the equity in sentencing with cases of the same or similar type of crime, the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.