beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: The Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts (the part on fraud against Victim G) on the grounds of unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal; however, the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the second trial date of the trial.
On the other hand, the Defendant appears to have asserted legal principles (it is not a single comprehensive crime against victims, and a part of the crime is deemed to be acquitted after the statute of limitations has been imposed) after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal has expired. However, this does not constitute legitimate judgment due to a subsequent argument after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal has expired nine times from December 1, 2006 to December 28, 2007, and the crime against the victim F is more than five times from February 2, 2007 to July 27, 2007, and thus, it is deemed that the victim's intention is a single crime and the crime against the victim F is identical, and thus, it is deemed that each single comprehensive crime is established. Therefore, the above argument to the purport of the above purport is not acceptable.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case on the second trial date of the trial, only before the defendant was sentenced to a fine on several occasions, and there is no record of imprisonment with prison labor or a stay of execution, and there is room to view that the victims who delivered the money only to the victims who delivered the money in good faith and to receive high rates of profits have considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage.
However, the crime of this case shall acquire money exceeding KRW 900,000 from the victims, who are the vice-party, under the pretext of investment in the business in which the defendant has almost little possibility.