beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, did not recognize that his act was a money exchange business, but did not constitute a money exchange business, and thus did not have the intention of defraudation. The Defendant did not conspired with the employees of the phishing and the commission of the crime.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail on the defendant's assertion under the title "the judgment on the defendant's and his/her defense counsel's assertion" as the grounds for appeal of this case was alleged in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument. In light of the above judgment of the court below closely compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant
subsection (b) of this section.
The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.
3. Although there are circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime in the past or was sentenced to the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment for the defendant, and that the amount acquired by the defendant is not larger than the amount of damage, the crime of this case is a so-called " Bosing" crime that takes money from many unspecified victims in a systematic and professional manner after sharing the roles of a large number of unspecified victims according to a thorough plan. In the case of the sosing crime, the crime of this case is committed by taking part not only in the total amount but also in the act of subordinate officers such as the withdrawal, exchange books, remittance books, remittance books, solicitation of passbooks, and credit card delivery books, so there is a need to strictly punish subordinate officers' participation in the crime of this case. The defendant is seen to have actively participated in the crime of this case, such as exercising forged official documents while misrepresenting the employees of the Financial Supervisory Service.