The judgment below

Part on the third crime in the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing of the Defendant) that the lower court rendered (the first and second crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the third crimes in its ruling: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle for the determination of crimes Nos. 1 and 2 in its holding, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

There were favorable circumstances such as the defendant's recognition of the crime of injury to the victim D, and the defendant's payment of KRW 20 million to the victim E immediately before the decision of the court below was made.

In addition, it is reasonable to consider the fact that the defendant, after being detained by the court below after being detained by the court below, should be seen as breaking his wrong wrongs, such as submitting a reflective statement after being detained by the court below. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of fraud against the victim E who denied the crime at the court below in the court below, and that the defendant's figures want to leave the front place.

However, in the course of the investigation and the trial of the court below, there was no agreement on the victim D who suffered a serious injury who expressed strong desire to punish the victim and did not recover the damage.

In addition, in addition to the unfavorable circumstances described in the reasoning of sentencing of the judgment below, the defendant made a defense or transfer of responsibility not easily obtained during the investigation process while the defendant did not appear in the prosecutor's investigation without any justifiable reason, the defendant was absent on the date of the judgment of the court below and the defendant was issued a detention warrant, and the victim E in the judgment of the court below that "the habitual fraud who knows the progress of the law well leads to time."