beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (Defendant A and B: one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, one hundred and sixty hours of community service order, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant C, D: one year of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The crime of this case against Defendant A and B of the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal is a systematic and systematic method that takes charge of taking part in telephone finance fraud that causes damage to many unspecified victims and takes charge of taking part in withdrawal, and there is no good character of crime, and there is a need to severely punish Defendants on the ground that there is a high possibility of social criticism. The total amount of damage is not more than KRW 44 million, and the amount that the Defendants withdrawn is considerable, etc. are disadvantageous to Defendant A and B.
On the other hand, the Defendants have been able to recognize all the crimes, and the Defendants did not play a leading role in the crime of telephone financing fraud. Defendant B took part in the middle of the crime under the proposal of Defendant A, and agreed with both the victims of the fraud. The victims do not want the punishment against the Defendants, the Defendants’ age is relatively old as the first offender, and the Defendants’ family members and branch members are leading the Defendants, and there seems to be considerable room for improvement. The Defendants were detained for two months and had the time of reflectiveness, etc., in favor of Defendant A and B.
In addition, when considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and background of the crime, size of profit gained from the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A and B exceeded the reasonable bounds in the decision of sentencing.
It can not be said that it is unfair because it is too unfortunate.