beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of three million won) imposed by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant on the ground that, in light of the fact that the means of access leased by the Defendant was used in the crime of Bophishing and actual damage was inflicted, the Defendant’s act of committing the instant crime is not easy in light of the following: (a) the Defendant received a proposal from a person who was not aware of his/her name to “to lend a loan by raising credit rating if it
However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have recognized the instant crime and reflect the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the Defendant did not have any force other than the power sentenced to a fine once for the instant crime on or around 2013; (c) the instant crime was committed simply one-time; and (d) there was no benefit from actual acquisition; (d) there was no change in special circumstances that could change the Defendant’s punishment heavier than that of the lower court after the sentence was rendered; and (e) there was no other change in the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and behavior, environment, and equality in sentencing, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.