beta
Text
The judgment below
Each part of the conviction against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and ten months, and the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ punishment (i.e., imprisonment of one year and six months; (ii) imprisonment of one year and six months; and (iii) imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The instant fraud crime committed by Defendant A and the Prosecutor with respect to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing is a scaming crime that steals money from the victim in a systematic and planned manner, and is serious and harmful to society as a whole by massing an unspecified number of victims, and its nature is very poor. As such, it is difficult to cope with the possible possible measures as a member of the general public because the method of the commission of the scaming fraud was artificially advanced, and it is not easy to arrest the criminal in the form of the organization that committed the crime. As such, there is a great need to prevent recurrence by taking into account the degree of participation of the participants and the circumstances such as the actual proceeds of the crime, etc.
However, the Defendant, as so-called “to-face liability”, directly used the victims, and committed the instant Bosing Fraud, and also used forged official documents. The degree of participation in the instant crime and the liability for such crime is not less complicated.
In addition, the defendant acquired the total amount of 6,824,00 won against 4 victims.
In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of crime, circumstances after crime, etc. as well as various sentencing conditions revealed in the records and changes of this case, considering the fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the Defendant’s criminal act, the damage recovery to one victim was made, the Defendant’s economic situation is very poor, and the primary offender is favorable to the Defendant, even when considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair. Therefore, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is deemed unfair.