beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
Defendant
A Evidence Nos. 3, 3.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment and one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. The singishing crime aiding and abetting by the defendants is a crime that causes damage to the victims, which is practically difficult to recover, in a planned and organized manner against many unspecified victims, and is a serious social harm.
In addition, the crime of transmitting a means of access knowing that it will be used for the crime related to electronic financial transactions is not only detrimental to the security and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also the means that facilitate any other crime.
Although the Defendants did not recognize that they will be used in crime, they play the role of delivering the e-mail card over several times according to the instructions of the staff. Furthermore, at any time, it seems to have clearly known that they are involved in crime at any time. In light of the importance of the e-mail crime and the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, it is inevitable to punish the Defendants.
This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, the defendants recognize all of the crimes in the trial and are against the law.
The Defendants’ participation in the commission of a crime related to Bosing is relatively low in the scope of aiding and abetting.
Defendant
A has no record of crime in addition to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for about 15 years and the punishment of the defendant B three times of fine.
In addition, in the trial of the party, Defendant A agreed to recover a significant portion of the damage amount to the victim AH and the smooth consent was made by Defendant B to recover all the damage amount to the victim AI and AK and to smoothly agree that the said victims would not be punished by the Defendants in this court.
This is favorable to the Defendants.