beta
Text
All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the following: (a) Defendants (1) and defense counsels (a) are against each of the instant crimes; (b) are recognized as all of the instant crimes; and (c) the number of crimes committed is only four times in total for three days, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant one year of imprisonment is too unreasonable.
(2) In light of the fact that all of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant B and his defense counsel (an unfair form of punishment) are recognized, and the damage recovery was partially performed, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment is too unreasonable.
(3) In light of the fact that Defendant C’s defense counsel (unjustifiableness) recognized all of the instant crimes, and partially recovered from damage, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced Defendant C to one year of imprisonment is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact that the instant crime by the prosecutor (unfairness) has a significant impact on the organization and society, and that a strict punishment is needed to prevent future occurrence of crime, each punishment that the court below sentenced to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. As the judgment of the court below properly revealed in the reasons for sentencing, each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendants is organized, planned, intelligent, and in a short period, and the nature of the crime is very rough and inferior, and the Defendants’ act of sharing the Defendants is an essential role in the completion of the Bophishing crime, and the degree of participation is not less than that of the Defendants. In the meantime, the Defendants took part in the crime in a relatively simple manner, such as transport and withdrawal, without any history of criminal punishment in Korea, and the Defendants took part in the crime. Some of the damages were recovered, and the Defendants did not own most of the criminal proceeds, and the Defendants’ personality and conduct shown in the records and arguments of this case.