beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant F is reversed.
Defendant
F. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that Defendant B’s mistake is divided and reflected, and that Defendant B’s health is not good, such as continuing to receive medical treatment due to liveration, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact that Defendant F received a proposal from AA that he would receive a loan of a house leasing loan in a difficult situation, the crime of this case was committed, the damage recovery was made due to the full repayment of the loan by AA, and the support of the Defendant was deprived to his family, etc., the sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Common reasons for sentencing ① Each of the instant frauds is a planned and organized crime by creating false documents by using the hubs of the pre-tax loan system prepared by the Government for the stabilization of the lives of ordinary people in the National Housing Fund, which is a public fund. ② Each of the instant frauds is deprived of opportunities for use from ordinary people who are detrimental to the foundation of the pre-tax loan system for the stabilization of the lives of ordinary people and actually need to benefit from the above system, and is of significant social harm. ③ In the event the damage recovery by each of the instant frauds is not made, the loss ultimately would have been appropriated for the national tax, and thus, the damage therefrom would have to return to the people. Therefore, each of the instant frauds is very poor.
Therefore, these circumstances are commonly unfavorable circumstances to the Defendants.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the fact that the Defendant appears to have an attitude of reflecting the Defendant’s wrongness, is favorable to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not return the amount of profit which he claimed to have acquired.