beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the fact that the defendant recognized and reflected his mistake; and (b) the fact that the victims do not want punishment by mutual consent with the victims when the defendant was in the first instance; and (c) the fact that the state of health is not good.
However, the defendant has the technology for which he serves as the chairperson, and the defendant has the technology for which the patent was paid.
Denating victims and deceiving them about KRW 370 million for the purpose of investment funds to the above company. In light of the method, size, etc. of the crime, even though there was a significant nature of the crime, three times a sentence for the same crime, three times a suspended sentence, one time a suspended sentence, the crime of this case was committed again, and the degree of participation compared to the defendant in this case is relatively weak for the defendant.
In light of the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that it is necessary to consider the equity in punishment with the above accomplice, etc., and other factors such as the defendant's age, sex, home environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and it is not acknowledged that the sentence is too unfair, in light of the various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances before and after the crime.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (The court below issued a compensation order upon the application of the applicant C’s compensation order, but the above application was withdrawn at the trial of the party, and thus, it is not determined as to the legitimacy of the compensation order).