beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant F is reversed.
Defendant
F shall be punished by fine of 5,000,000 won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts (the acquisition of stolen goods from July 201 among the facts charged against Defendant F), the fact that the Defendant purchased a mobile phone from A with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant was stolen is recognized. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. 2) Each sentence (Defendant C: June, suspension of execution, 2 years of imprisonment, 3 million won of fine, and 9 months of imprisonment) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants of unfair sentencing (Defendant C: Defendant C; Defendant E: 3 million won of imprisonment, and Defendant F.) is deemed unfair.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant F is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant C and E, in collusion with Defendant C and the mobile phone subscribers, commit the instant crime by allowing the cell phone subscribers to file a false report on the illegal sentencing of the Prosecutor’s Defendant C and E. The nature of the instant crime is heavy.
However, Defendant C and E have only been punished twice by fine for other crimes.
Defendant
C acquired only the same opening fees as normal openings.
Defendant
E is limited to six persons, and there is little amount of profit earned as a introduction fee.
Defendant
E recognized a crime, has a depth, and voluntarily surrendered to the investigation agency.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including Defendant C, E’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant C and E cannot be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.
B. Of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below on the part on the defendant F by 1 ex officio is the first instance trial, and the defendant F's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is dismissed as "acquisition of stolen property", "Article 5-4 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Articles 363 and 362 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Articles 362 (1), 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act."