beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. The circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession and reflects all of the crimes in the trial, the fact that the victims of the 2015 Highest 276 Incident have agreed smoothly with the victims, and that the total amount of damage is merely 252,300 won.
However, the defendant has a habitual fraud or fraud record up to 20 times including 14 times of punishment, and the defendant was released from the same line of conduct on January 14, 2015 and again committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period as long as he was released from the same line of conduct on January 14, 2015, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, and other factors such as character and conduct of the defendant, family environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the recommended sentencing guidelines [the types of the crimes of this case falling under the same kind of crime among general fraud according to the sentencing guidelines less than 10 million won shall be determined based on the sum of the amount of profit for each of the crimes of this case falling under the same kind of crime between general fraud and general
According to the sentencing guidelines, among mitigation areas (special mitigation areas: in a case where punishment is not imposed or considerable damage is recovered, a person who is under special mitigation: the same number of behavior is more severe than the same number of actors/other persons. However, “the intent of a victim who does not want punishment” as an offender/other person may be evaluated as equal to the offender. As the offender/other person is a special mitigation (in a case where punishment is not imposed or considerable damage is recovered) and a person under special mitigation (in a case where punishment is not imposed or considerable damage is recovered), the offender/other person falls under the mitigation area. Considering that it falls under the mitigation area, the sentence imposed by the court below is excessively unreasonable. It is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.