beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, C, D and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the prosecutor (as to the defendants: three years of imprisonment; one year and six months; two years of imprisonment; two years of imprisonment; one year and six months; two years of imprisonment; one year and six months; two years of suspended execution; two years of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution; two years of fine; two million won of fine; two years of suspended execution; and one year and six years of suspended execution) that the court below sentenced the defendants are too uneasible and unfair.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of this case by Defendant A, B, C, and D, the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A, B, C, and D is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The so-called “singing” crime, such as each of the instant crimes, committed on a systematic and planned basis for an unspecified number of unspecified persons, is likely to undermine the safety and reliability of financial transactions and cause serious inequality and danger to the society as a whole, as the crime is intelligent with the development of information and communication technology, and the social harm caused by the massation of victims increases. In addition, there are many cases where those who are economically poor who have difficulty in obtaining a loan from a financial institution become victims, and there is a very large social harm because the scope of damage is differentiated and neglected, as well as structural characteristics that are not easy to recover damage.
Such circumstances shall be taken into account as unfavorable sentencing factors for all the Defendants.
B. Defendant A (Appeals by Both Parties) asserts to the effect that only a person with the intent to obtain a loan in accordance with the instructions of the shipbuilding unit that oversees the entire crime of the instant case, was managing the first call center, and that there was no participation in the second call center or the so-called solicitation and withdrawal of the passbook, which actually implements the commission of fraud, and thus, the degree of participation is not much significant.
However, there is a fact that the first call center has contacted with D, etc. with respect to the passbook which is irrelevant to the work of the center, and it exceeds the ordinary wage amount claimed by the defendant.