beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflected the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the victim C is 60 million won; (c) the victim C is 113.5 million won; (d) the victim L is 25 million won; (e) M is 9.2 million won; and (e) the victim paid 9.2 billion won to M; and (c) the O is 5 million won; and (d) the Defendant’s movable property is sold by auction around October 2017 without evidentiary materials; and (e) even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, it is difficult to view it as special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be reflected in the sentencing, as seen below, in light of the Defendant’s total fraud or the amount of damage not yet repaid.
Considering the fact that the court below made efforts to recover damage, such as making efforts, and in the future, endeavoring to repay damage and faithfully, the sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. There is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the judgment of the court below is sentenced.
Even if the amount of fraud of this case is a large amount and the amount of repayment claimed by the defendant is recognized, the amount of damage still remains without paying 370 million won.
The fraud of this case is considerably poor, and the circumstances after the crime are also not good, such as purchasing low clothes, etc. from the department store with the money acquired by the defendant.
The defendant, even though he was subject to suspended sentence due to similar criminal acts, has committed the crime of fraud in this case again.
In addition, comprehensively taking into account the number of victims and victims’ investment motive, frequency and period of crimes, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.