beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case, in collusion with M et al., the Defendant, who is a bromoer for personal influent lending, forged a false lease agreement with the government for the stabilization of the residence of homeless workers by abusing the loan system of the entire house loan executed by the government for the stabilization of the residence of homeless workers, and then acquired the loan of the entire house from the damaged bank as if the lease contract was genuinely formed (the so-called “work loan”). The Defendant is the opportunity to obtain the work loan from his own name through loan brops, thereby taking part in the fraudulent criminal organization led by M as a result of taking part in the fraudulent crime organization led by M, thereby obtaining the total amount of KRW 120 million from the damaged bank for the purpose of the loan of the entire house loan in C’s name.
However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the defendant appears to have shared only simple acts, such as taking the direction of M, delivering documents, or driving, etc., relatively small amount of profit actually received due to the crime of this case compared to the fraud amount of KRW 1 million, and the defendant took part in the additional crime other than the one in which he took part in the crime of this case.
There is no evidence to see that there is no record that the defendant was punished for the same crime as this case, or has no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment, that the defendant appears to have an opportunity to reflect to a certain degree through a prison life for about three months due to this case, and that the defendant deposited one million won, which is the amount he received for the damaged bank, for the first time, and that there is no circumstance to consider the defendant.
In addition to the above circumstances, the age, sex, environment, and victim of the defendant.