The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence 10,00.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 28, 2016, the lower court rendered the above sentence by considering the following favorable circumstances: (a) the crime was inferior in light of the fraud law; (b) the defrauded did not properly recover from damage even to the extent of fraud; and (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon support on September 28, 2016; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period; (c) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (d) the Defendant was against the Defendant; and (e) the victims are also responsible for the occurrence of the case and the expansion of damage.

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court in addition to the unfavorable circumstances considering the lower court’s consideration, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the favorable circumstances, the Defendant’s attitude to reflect the Defendant’s wrong determination as to Defendant B, the victims are also responsible for the occurrence of this case and the expansion of damage, the Defendant agreed to all with the victims at the time of the first instance, and the Defendant did not have any criminal record of exceeding the same kind of fine, the background leading up to the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and crime.