The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment (a fine of 700,000 won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

On January 13, 201, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 for larceny, fraud, and the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act in the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court on January 13, 201. However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim D for the first time in the trial; (b) the defendant has expressed in mind the defendant's confession of all of the crimes of this case; and (c) other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the defendant's age, occupation, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

1. On May 6, 2012, at around 23:35, the Defendant embezzled, with the intention of acquisition, without taking necessary procedures, such as discovering one 30,000 won, one 30,000 won, one national physical fitness card in the wallet, one resident registration certificate, 20,000 won, and reporting it to the nearby police station, at the bus stops located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, “C” located in B.

2. Fraud;

A. On May 7, 2012, at around 11:46, the Defendant settled the amount by putting the cream card of a national bank, which was obtained as indicated in the preceding paragraph, at “F convenience store” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the amount equivalent to 3,100 won of bread and drinking water, and presenting it to the victim’s name, who is the convenience store proprietor, as if he was his body card.

However, the defendant did not intend to pay the price even if he purchased the above goods, not the owner or legitimate holder of the above physical card.

The Defendant, as such, is deceiving the victim to receive property.