beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, the additional collection of 1,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The circumstances are favorable for the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and against himself; (b) the Defendant’s failure to repeat the crime; (c) there is a family member to support; (d) the victim C and I agree with the lower court; and (e) the victims do not want punishment against the Defendant in the first instance trial by mutual consent with the victim A and A.
However, the Defendant acquired a total of approximately KRW 420 million from many victims. In light of the method of crime and the degree of damage, the Defendant had a record of being punished several times for the same crime; the Defendant repeated the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period; the circumstance in which A and additional agreements with A cannot be viewed as a special circumstance or change of circumstances that can change the sentence of the lower court in light of the number of victims and the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes; and the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, circumstance and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., comprehensively considering all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, the Defendant’s punishment of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.
3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the "safinite" in the name of the crime in the column 2017 Highest 593 (Merger) of the judgment below is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "act of fraud," and thus, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.)