beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and two months.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of KRW 300,000,000, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, and additional collection of KRW 150,000) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of KRW 300,000,000, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, and additional collection of KRW 150,000,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants committed the following crimes: (a) the crime of scaming conditions, which are common to the Defendants, consists of organized crimes, causing serious damage to many victims, and making it difficult to recover damage therefrom; (b) so severe punishment is required; and (c) the Defendants play an essential core role in each of the instant crimes, such as playing the role of the so-called “ Call Center Counseling Institute” as a member of the Bosing Criminal Organization; and (d) the maximum amount of money KRW 218.75 million is disadvantageous to the Defendants.
On the other hand, the defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case as crimes of this case and are against the law, and there is no criminal punishment power, and the defendants did not reach the working period within one month, and the profits acquired by each of the crimes of this case are deemed to have not yet been accrued. The circumstances are favorable to the defendants.
B. In full view of the above normal relationship, Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court against Defendant A cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The sentencing of the lower court is as it is in the first instance court with respect to