beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each sentence (two years of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case regarding Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is a systematic and intelligent crime against many unspecified persons and the amount of damage is very bad, and the Defendant continued to commit a crime by changing its trade name despite the arrest of I and K, which is an accomplice, and even though they were detained, the Defendant played a role necessary for the crime, such as taking charge of duties and personnel management, and in particular, the Defendant took charge of the representative director of the company whose trade name has been changed after being detained.
However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the balance of the punishment against other accomplices, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable in full view of the following: (a) the defendant was the time of the crime of this case; (b) some victims were not punished or some victims were expected to have made efforts to repay damage after the crime; and (c) the actual amount of damage would be less than the amount of damage specified in the crime; and (d) the degree of participation in the crime of this case does not seem to be significantly different from the other accomplices.
3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B, the fact that the Defendant was applying for the instant crime, that there was a history of criminal punishment three times by fine, that some victims were not subject to punishment or that some victims were endeavored to make payment after the commission of the crime (the Defendant agreed with some victims in the trial) and that the actual amount of damage appears to be less than the amount of damage as stated in the crime.