logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.14 2020노1981
전기통신금융사기피해방지및피해금환급에관한특별법위반등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the three years of imprisonment for the defendant A, and the two years of imprisonment for the defendant B) is too unreasonable; and

2. The Defendants showed an attitude to recognize and reflect their criminal acts in the course of investigation, and actively cooperate in the investigation.

Defendant

B, upon contact with the investigative agency, voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency, and there is no criminal power.

Defendant

A has no record of punishment exceeding a fine.

The Defendants were involved in the crime of Bosing the Defendant’s name in accordance with the proposal of the Defendants, and the Defendants do not seem to have committed or led the entire crime of licensing the Defendants.

Defendant

A's crime of arranging sexual traffic in this case is limited to about one month, and the scale of business is not large.

The profits earned by the Defendants from the crime of Bosing the instant case seems to be smaller than the scope of the damage.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing, in which the Defendants participated, is very secret and organized, and not only is the victim's method (if the victim calls to a financial institution, the victim's phone should be recorded, and the victim's text message should be seen as the content of the text message should be installed) but also the victim's crime is very poor in that the damage was caused to a large number of crimes and social harm related thereto.

The Defendants are working at the call center in China for a period of up to five months, which is close to China and Korea, and entices victims by telephone. This is the most essential role in the scaming crime, and the Defendants’ responsibility is heavy.

Although the Defendants participated in the instant Bophishing crime due to economic difficulties, the Defendants were subject to criminal acts because they suffered economic difficulties like the Defendants, and thus, they were the victims who want to obtain the loans.

arrow