logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노357
사기
Text

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by deceiving that he would sell goods to many unspecified persons using smartphone display and by deceiving him to sell them as a price, and the criminal liability is not less and less in light of the method and frequency of the crime, and the fact that the Defendant has been punished by a fine twice for the same crime is disadvantageous.

However, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant repents his mistake in depth and reflects it, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, seven of the 19 victims and six of the 19 victims, the money by fraud was deposited for the purpose of using six accounts, and the scope of the recommended sentence for the crime of this case according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission, is one-year fraud group, one-year fraud type (less than KRW 100 million), one-year fraud type (less than KRW 100,00), the decision of the recommended area, the scope of the recommended sentence (in cases where the punishment was not imposed or was recovered in part), the scope of the recommended sentence (Article 1-1), and the major pride factors that can be suspended are considered: The punishment is not imposed in excess of the amount of punishment or considerable damage, and it is not recognized that the sentence is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence is reversed, considering all the following conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive, means and consequence after the crime.

3. The appeal filed by the prosecutor with the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow