beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant A, D, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A 4 years of imprisonment, Defendant D, and E, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (Defendant E) Defendant E did not operate a separate call center in a leisure area.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (five years of imprisonment, four years of imprisonment, and four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The part of the facts constituting the crime of mistake of facts (Defendant E) that "E operated a call center in female water" is part of the facts charged against Defendant A, and Defendant E is not related to Defendant E, and thus, Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.
(B) However, the part of the crime No. 4 of the judgment of the court below, "A defendant E operates a call center as above in leisure," and the part of the "nive area where the defendant E takes charge of the loan from a financial institution," No. 5 of the fourth part of the crime of the judgment of the court below, are not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant E operated a call center in leisure. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant E operated the call center in leisure. The so-called "scaming" crime, which is organized and planned for many and unspecified persons, such as each crime of the case of unfair sentencing, is likely to undermine the safety and reliability of financial transactions and cause serious dangers and dangers to the society as a whole, as the criminal law is more intelligent with the development of information and communication technology, and there are many cases where people lacking economic difficulties in obtaining a loan from a financial institution become victims, and there is a great need to punish the defendants in that it is very difficult to recover damage.
However, the Defendants were aware of all the crimes of this case when they were in the past.