beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, Defendant B, and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. (1) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and Defendant B is too unfased and unreasonable.
(2) As to Defendant C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and acquitted Defendant C, even if the lower court found Defendant C guilty of false aiding and abetting.
2. Determination
A. (1) On the grounds for sentencing common to the Defendants, including the instant crime, the so-called “wishing” crime, which is committed on a systematic and planned basis for many and unspecified persons, is likely to undermine the safety and reliability of financial transactions and cause serious inequality and danger to the society as a whole. As the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes becomes more intelligent, the social harm caused by the mass production of victims increases.
In particular, there are many cases where people who are economically poor who have difficulty in receiving loans from financial institutions become victims, and there is a very high social harm because the scope of damage is differentiated and neglected, as well as structural characteristics which are not easy to recover damage.
Furthermore, the defrauded amount of this case also reached approximately KRW 3 billion, and there is no doubt about the profits acquired by the Defendants among the total amount of the fraud due to the nature of the Bosing crime. However, G consistently stated that the accomplice paid KRW 500 million to the Defendants the proceeds from the delivery of text messages, KRW 500 million to the purchase cost of the large passbook, and KRW 300 million to the cash withdrawal. Therefore, it seems that the amount acquired by the Defendants accounts for a considerable portion of the total amount of the fraud amount of each crime of this case.
In addition, the defendant A is found to have been broken at the previous criminal records, and the office in which the above defendant was operated.