beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and three months.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (one and half years of the Defendant A’s imprisonment, and two years of the Defendant B’s imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of telephone financial fraud, such as the crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, is a crime that is planned and organized against many unspecified persons, and not only the scope of damage is differentiated and neglected, but also the damage recovery is not easy, and thus, the nature of the crime is very bad and strict. Although Defendant A had experienced the organization of Bosing prior to the crime of this case, he again committed the crime of this case; Defendant B acquired a large amount of money against many unspecified victims, and Defendant B failed to recover damages properly until the trial, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, including the fact that the Defendants recognized the instant crime and reflected in depth the Defendant’s mistake, the amount of damage caused by Defendant A’s fraud is not very significant, and the Defendants agreed to the Defendant’s original offender who did not have any criminal record, the Defendants actively cooperate with the investigation of the accomplices who are not yet arrested, etc., as well as other circumstances, such as the motive, background, means and method of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the profits gained from the instant crime, the balance of punishment with the accomplices, and the age, character and conduct, career, and environment of the Defendants as shown in the instant argument, it is recognized that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. Conclusion.