beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the first instance court sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., one year of imprisonment with prison labor, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendants, as a member of the so-called “Singing” criminal organization, took part in the crime and acquired money from many victims systematically and systematically. In light of the fact that the social and economic harm of the Defendants is a very serious criminal, that the Defendants carried out the role of receiving and delivering the amount of damage, and that the degree of participation is not easy, and that it is very difficult to detect the characteristics of the singish criminal organization that is systematically and systematically linked with other accomplices, it is an element of sentencing that is disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, on the other hand, the defendants agreed with the victim I in the appellate trial, the defendants are divided into the victim I, the defendants have no record of criminal punishment, the partial amount of damage did not have been withdrawn, the defendants' actual profits do not appear to be significant, the defendant B does not withdraw from the scaming organization, and the defendants' family members and scambling persons want to take the scam, as well as other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as their respective ages, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, amount of money by fraud, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in detail, the punishment imposed by the court of first instance against the defendants cannot be maintained because it is somewhat inappropriate.
Therefore, the defendants' above assertion of unfair sentencing is accepted.
3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is with merit.