beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for ten months, each of the defendants B.
evidence of seizure.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (one year, two months, and confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendants’ crime is an essential role in the singishing crime as well as an essential role in the singishing crime by delivering a accessible medium that enables the entrance and exit of another person’s name and withdrawing money through the singishing crime and delivering it in accordance with the instructions of the total liability, and considering that the singishing crime inevitably takes place by taking account of the fact that the singishing crime is being carried out by the participation of subordinate staff members, such as the withdrawal and delivery books, the Defendants’ participation cannot be punished somewhat.
The Defendants, in collusion with a person who is not the victim’s name, acquired KRW 10 million from the victim F by fraud, and received and kept the e-mail card nine pages, an access medium. The crime of Bosing is very severe in society and the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act accompanying the aforesaid crime also requires strict punishment in light of the harm of the e-mailing crime. The number of access media received by the Defendants is not significant. Defendant A, upon departure from China to Korea, had a large number of employees of the e-mail and the e-mail team leader of the said organization, had a large degree of participation in the crime. In light of the fact that Defendant A, as the team leader of the said organization, had a strong degree of participation in the crime by distributing criminal proceeds to Defendant B, etc. as the team leader of the said organization under his direction.
On the other hand, the defendants recognized the crime of this case and opposed to it.
There is no record that Defendants were punished for the same crime.
Defendant
A paid 4 million won to the victim in the original trial, and the defendants paid 6 million won to the victim in the first instance trial together, and the defendants agreed with the victim by paying 6 million won to the victim.
The above circumstances and the Defendants’ .