The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing; and

2. We also examine the judgment and the Defendant’s respective arguments on unreasonable sentencing.

The lower court, while determining the sentence against the Defendant, cited “the fact that the Defendant did not have considerable profits from the instant crime” as one of the grounds for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant. However, in light of the following legal principles, it is difficult to accept the sentence as it is.

Our Supreme Court has consistently pointed out its inherent limitations on the sentencing discretion of the fact-finding court as follows.

In other words, in light of “the principle of balance of punishment” or “the principle of accountability” that the discretion on the sentencing of the fact-finding court and the proper balance between the crime and the punishment should be achieved, which is based on the responsibility and proportionality, there are inherent limitations that are recognized within the scope of sentencing determination as to the criminal liability of the accused as stated in the facts charged.

In a case where the court of fact-finding did not prove, on the basis of the crime charged to the accused, the motive or result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., according to the evidence having probative value, which is adequate to exclude a reasonable doubt as to the circumstances constituting a separate criminal offense that are not included in the conditions of sentencing as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the court of fact-finding, as a core sentencing condition, has the same substance as additionally punishing the Defendant for the crime for which no prosecution has been instituted against the Defendant by taking the determination of the sentence into account as an additional condition of sentencing, may be deemed to have infringed

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1816 Decided May 29, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2020Do8358 Decided September 3, 2020, respectively). They return to and examine the instant case, and the Defendant shall do so with more than 10 cases from March 16, 2020 to March 26, 2020, including each of the instant Bosing frauds.