beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. The Defendant appears to have committed fraud continuously and repeatedly over a considerable period against a large number of victims through Internet transactions, and thus significantly impaired the trust in online transactions. Moreover, on February 6, 2014, the Defendant was punished by a fine due to fraud under the same water law as the instant case, and the Defendant continued to commit the instant fraud, which amounts to a total of KRW 6,542,00,000, while under investigation, up to a total of the amount of the money acquired through deception, and instead, the Defendant was committed to the instant larceny crime, which leads to a considerable possibility of criticism, and is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and is detained for 80 days or more, and therefore seriously reflects his mistake, and the defendant paid part of the amount of the stolen money by endeavoring to recover the victims' damage after the sentence of the judgment below before and after the sentence of the judgment below, and the stolen goods have been returned to the victims, and the defendant has no specific penalty record other than the punishment record, and the defendant wants to prevent recidivism by his family members of the defendant and want to keep the defendant from repeating the crime. In full view of all other circumstances, considering the defendant's age, economic situation, character and behavior, occupation and environment, the circumstances and result of each of the crimes of this case, as well as all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed unfair. Thus, the prosecutor's argument is without merit, and the defendant's argument has merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.