beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (two years and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor's decision that the court below sentenced the defendants to each punishment (two years and eight months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended sentence in October) is unfair because it is too uneasible.
2. We examine the appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor against the Defendants.
In full recognition of all the crimes of this case, it is recognized that the Defendants committed the crime of this case, and Defendant B is the primary offender, Defendant B is the actual profit acquired by the Defendants through the crime of this case from the victim of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “victim”), and at the same time it appears to be less than the sum of the State subsidies specified in the facts constituting the crime of this case that were obtained by unlawful means, and the Defendants and the 19 taxi operators who conspired to commit the crime of this case are obtained from the victim from the Republic of Korea, and refund the full amount of the State subsidies received by unlawful means to the victim or to deposit for the victim.
However, the crime of this case committed by Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B, etc., by introducing the operators of taxi enterprises through brokerage business such as Defendant B while carrying out the business of applying for various national subsidies on behalf of others, and preparing and submitting employment rules falsely as if he either extended the retirement age or abolished the retirement age in collusion with Defendant B, etc., Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, etc., and Defendant B received KRW 1,208,916,740 in total from the victim, and Defendant B received KRW 73,560,000 out of the above amount, and received the same amount by unlawful means. In light of the law and content of the crime, the nature of the crime was very poor, and the damage recovery from the crime of this case was all performed by taxi business operators.