beta
Text
1. The part concerning Defendant L among the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
L. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
2. Defendant C, E.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C, E, G, I, and L’s sentence (Defendant C and I are punished by imprisonment for 4 months, Defendant E is punished by imprisonment for 8 months, Defendant G is punished by imprisonment for 1 year of suspended execution for 4 months, community service work 160 hours, Defendant L is punished by imprisonment for 1 year and 1 year and 4 months) is too unreasonable.
B. The four mobile phones sold by the prosecutor (Defendant F) A to Defendant F included the U.S.I.M., and the Defendant F sold it to others. As such, Defendant F committed a crime of violating the Telecommunications Business Act against Defendant F.
2. Determination as to the unjust assertion of sentencing of Defendant C, E, G, I, and L
A. Defendant C and I are favorable to the above Defendants that the Defendants recognized their mistakes and are against themselves.
However, if the above Defendants were to have been punished more than 10 times, and were to have been punished for the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, and other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case are taken into account, the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants is too large and unreasonable, and thus, the above Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.
B. Defendant E recognizes Defendant E’s mistake and reflects it is favorable for Defendant E.
However, Defendant E’s criminal act of this case during the period of repeated crime, the number of presidential bankbooks transferred by Defendant E is large, and other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case are taken into account, Defendant E’s punishment of Defendant E is too large and is not deemed unfair, and thus, Defendant E’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.
(c)
Defendant
G Even if Defendant G had the same criminal record, the lower court’s prior to the suspension of execution and other circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings were taken into account, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant G is too unreasonable, and thus, rejected Defendant G’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.