beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an amount of five million won) is too heavy or too unhued (the Defendant).
2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.
If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is transferred to another person in return for the Defendant’s promise in return for payment, which may cause considerable damage to the unspecified majority, by means of abuse as a means of other crimes. The access media as so transferred by the Defendant may actually cause considerable damage to other unspecified persons; the access media used for the crime of phishing fraud by the Defendant; the Defendant lost access media at the initial investigation stage; and the Defendant lost the access medium at the initial investigation stage.
The argument that did not seem to be an attitude of reflection, such as denying the crime of this case, is an unfavorable condition.
However, it is favorable for the Defendant to recognize the crime of this case, which is late, and against the fact that the Defendant has long been punished once for a crime of this case, and there is no particular criminal record, and there is no economic benefit from the crime of this case.
The court below determined a punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.
In full view of all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and theories of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be excessively heavy or light.
The defendant and the prosecutor's respective arguments of sentencing are accepted.