beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The respective types of punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) are too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.
2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the case of appeal by Defendant A was tried by combining each of the judgment below as the case of appeal by Defendant A was filed in the first and second instances. Of the judgment below and the judgment of the second court, the facts constituting the crime of Defendant A in the part of the judgment of the first and second instances are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act as follows. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the first and second instances of the judgment of the court below relating to
3. The crime of this case as to Defendant B’s appeal is an unfavorable circumstance against Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant B, even though Defendant B did not have the intent or ability to properly repay the loan from the lending company, and the victim C obtained a total of KRW 11.9 million loan from the lending company and let the victim C provide joint and several sureties, and the case is not easy, and Defendant B did not agree with the victim C.
However, the punishment shown in the records and arguments, such as the confessions and reflects by Defendant B, the degree of deceptions by Defendant B is relatively minor, and the fact that Defendant B has no specific history of punishment other than the one-time fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in around 1997, including the fact that Defendant B has no record of punishment.