beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. The instant crime of this case as to the reasons for appeal was committed by the Defendant, with a view to easily raising living expenses, gambling funds, etc., by deceiving victims as if they were to sell goods through the Internet, and by deceiving them, thereby impairing the soundness of online trade order and raising bona fide victims, and such crime is heavy in that the crime was committed.
Not only 85 victims of the instant crime but also 27 million won shall be raised.
Furthermore, the Defendant had the record of having been punished several times due to the crimes under the same law, and in particular, on June 12, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor and three years and six months for fraud on January 26, 2017 during the execution of the sentence, and began to commit the instant crime even before the parole period expires, and even before the parole period expires, the Defendant’s criminal liability is heavy.
Therefore, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant who continuously repeats the same kind of crime and does not have the intention to improve his character and behavior, and a sentence of severe penalty equivalent to it is inevitable.
However, even though the above severe punishment is necessary, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the defendant's acknowledgement of all the crimes of this case and the defendant showing an attitude against his mistake, such as taking measures to recover damage from some victims, etc. However, a thorough examination of the sentencing cases of lower court's similar judgments corresponding to the applicable law of the crime of this case and the amount of damage, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the defendant three years and six months to be too high in light of the equity among similar cases, and all these are all these circumstances.