beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence sentenced to the Defendants (i) imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and (ii) imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.
B. Each sentence imposed on the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case, and against his mistake, Defendant A deposited an amount equivalent to the amount of damages in order to recover the victims’ damage in the original trial, and the primary offender is favorable circumstances.
On the other hand, each of the instant crimes is disadvantageous to the so-called “work loan” fraud in light of the method and frequency of crimes, etc., and the total amount of damages incurred by each of the instant crimes is about KRW 120 million.
In addition, given that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the developments leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances after the crime, and the environment of Defendant A, etc.; and (b) the various sentencing conditions revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentence imposed on Defendant A is too excessive or too heavy, and thus, it does not seem unfair.
B. Each of the instant crimes committed against Defendant B is not good in light of the method, frequency, etc. of the so-called “work loan” crime, and the total amount of damage incurred by each of the instant crimes is approximately KRW 120 million, etc., which is disadvantageous to the Defendant B.
However, this case includes that Defendant B led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case and against his mistake; Defendant B deposited an amount equivalent to six million won out of the amount of damage in the original trial in order to recover the victims’ damage; additionally deposited 6 million won in the original trial; and Defendant B did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime.