beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
[Defendant A] Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.
Defendant
A The above fine shall be imposed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts is merely a fact that Defendant A was used for each of the crimes of this case because he belongs to the upper Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy between the upper Defendant B and the upper Defendant B.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in determining the misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A (1) and the facts acknowledged by the original court’s statement at the trial court of the above Defendant B, in particular, the status and role of Defendant A, and the detailed method and process of the crime, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A shared with the above Defendant B in collusion with each of the crimes of this case, and shared the essential act of each of the crimes of this case.
Defendant
A's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.
(2) On May 20, 201, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for the crime of intrusion on night buildings on May 20, 201, and the execution of the sentence was completed on July 17, 201, and committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime.
However, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances in the records, including the Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is somewhat unreasonable, in view of the fact that each of the crimes in this case appears to have been planned and implemented by the Defendant B, the victims were recovered most from the time of the trial, the Defendant did not have any previous fault, and the motive, means and result of the crime in this case, and the motive, means and result of the crime in this case.
Defendant
A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.
B. Defendant B is capable of having been punished for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B purchased a vehicle with a loan from a loan company around July 21, 201.