beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. In light of the favorable circumstances such as the confession and rebuttal of the defendant, the primary offender, the profits gained by the defendant are not significant compared to the amount of damage, the defendant appears not to have participated in the crime of this case with a conclusive intent, and the defendant has made efforts to recover damage by agreement with three of the ten victims, etc., the defendant is responsible for delivering the amount of money acquired through telephone financing fraud. Such a crime of telephone financing fraud is committed against many unspecified persons under a thorough plan by sharing the roles of multiple persons, and it is not easy to recover damage. As such, there is a great social harm because it is not easy to punish the participants who participated in the crime of this case, there is a need to strictly punish them; the total amount of damage is larger than 3.6 million won; the victim's remaining victims did not agree with the victims; and there is no other undue punishment or punishment, such as age, sex, motive, frequency of the crime, method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.
3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the “post office conduct” among the “criminal facts” of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the “new bank”, and “Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the criminal facts of 1.” among the “application of the statutes”, “Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” is a clerical error in the “Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”