beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court dismissed the application for compensation order filed by the applicant E (the initial 81th 2018).
An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and this part shall be excluded from the scope of the adjudication of the relevant party.
The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant acknowledges all of his mistake and seriously reflects his fault, and that part of the damage caused by the fraud was recovered.
However, in the meantime, the crime related to the fraud of this case was committed by the defendant by acquiring money exceeding KRW 400 million against many victims, and in the process, it was intended to use the private document under the name of another person by forging it, and in light of the criminal history, means and methods of the crime, the amount of the criminal liability was heavy, the amount of the money in arrears was not small, and the amount of the money in arrears was not small, and the defendant had a number of criminal records, such as punishment imposed on the defendant, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant. In full view of all the sentencing conditions of the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, change of circumstances after the sentence of the judgment below, it cannot be said that the punishment of the court below seems to be unfair and unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the same Act. However, the “Labor Standards Act” in the part of the lower judgment’s “applicable law to the crime of 1.0” is a clerical error in the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017).