beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (ten months of imprisonment, six months of probation, two years of probation, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment, one year of probation, two years of probation, 10,000 won of additional collection, 10,00 won of protection observation, 80 hours of social service, etc.) is deemed unreasonable.
2. First of all, we examine the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendants.
Defendant
A, C, and D shared their planned role and committed each of the instant frauds. In particular, the Defendant A repeated the crime of gambling during the period of suspension of the execution of the crime of gambling.
Defendant
C, D, in order to facilitate the commission of a crime, has committed a very high possibility of criticism against the victim's investment in the victim.
Defendant
A, B, and C have both criminal records related to gambling (Defendant B has a history of being sentenced to suspended sentence, although 1996) and Defendant D has the largest role in committing the crime by planning and moving this case to its execution.
On the other hand, we look at the conditions favorable to the Defendants.
Defendant A and C have the attitude of reflecting each of the Defendants' mistake, and for the victim, Defendant A and C deposited KRW 3 million, and Defendant B deposited KRW 2 million, and Defendant D agreed with the victim.
Defendant
B appears not to have participated in the crime in a planned manner, and Defendant D was aware of the crime and was trying to recover the damage of the victim, and there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine.
Defendant
C. D There is no previous convictions related to narcotics.
In full view of the overall conditions of sentencing as seen earlier, including the amount of damage, the specific background of each crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing with respect to the Defendants is within the pertinent scope.
I seem to appear.
Therefore, sentencing is imposed.