beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in case of Defendant A, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 5 million won of fine, 10, 11, 13 through 20 respectively, 10,1100 won of fine, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 10,000 won of fine, 2 years of probation, 10,000 won of evidence 21 of punishment, 10,1410,000 won of fine, 290,000 won of penalty) are too unafford.
2. The Defendants did not have any criminal punishment in Korea prior to each of the instant crimes; the Defendants were detained for about two months in the instant case and had an opportunity to reflect their mistakes; the Defendants did not receive any fee at a certain rate with respect to the amount they handled, but run a business in a manner that collects only a fee of KRW 10,000 per case (a total of KRW 15,00,000), and the actual profits appear to be very low compared to the number of money exchanged, etc. favorable to the Defendants.
On the other hand, the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case are crimes that undermine transparency in foreign exchange transactions and are highly likely to be abused as a means of illegal monetary transactions, and their nature is bad, and the amount exchanged by the Defendants reaches a considerable scale, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances revealed in the records and pleadings, each of the punishments against the Defendants is deemed appropriate as a punishment within the scope of the discretion of sentencing.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The prosecutor asserts that the court below's failure to confiscate evidence 1 to 9 among the seized articles is unfair, but evidence is proved.