beta
Text
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for seven years and for eight years, respectively.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the Defendants both recognize and reflects their mistakes, together with traveling to the Thailand, caused robbery in order to prepare money far away from expenses; the robbery of this case was arrested to the Thai Police for a long time; the Defendants entered the Republic of Korea in Thailand and voluntarily entered the Thai Police; there was no record of punishment heavier than fines for the Defendants; E and P have been agreed upon among the victims; and the rest of the victims are excessively agreed or scheduled to be deposited. In light of the above, each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 8 years of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with labor for nine years) is too unreasonable.
2. The number of the Defendants and the amount of the commission of fraud using the country’s website is considerable, and the number of robbery was planned in advance to commit robbery up to four times, and the victims are expected to suffer a large mental impulse due to the robbery of this case. This is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendants.
However, the Defendants recognized all the crimes in the trial of the party and against each other, and agreed with the victim E and P at the court below, and deposited 1.5 million won as the deposited person for the compensation of damage in the trial of the party, 1.5 million won as the victim L as the deposited person, and 1.0 million won as the victim L as the victim was arrested as the case in the Thai Police from February 26, 2016 to May 27, 2016. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of the Defendants, including each age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, each sentence of the court below against the Defendants is somewhat inappropriate.
Therefore, the defendants' argument of sentencing is justified.
3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is reasonable, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.