The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All of the applicants for compensation are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the sentencing determination in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a method similar to the instant crime, even though he had been sentenced to four years of probation, again committed the instant crime.

The period of crime is a long-term period and the amount of fraud also reaches 260 million won.

Furthermore, the defendant forged the judgment and used it for fraud crime.

Even if the damage has not been fully recovered, there is no circumstance that the defendant made efforts to recover the damage.

The victims still want the strict punishment of the defendant.

There is no new change in circumstances that could change the original court's punishment in the trial.

Considering the above circumstances and the sentencing conditions, such as character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless, and the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation is not clear. Thus, the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation is dismissed in accordance with Articles 32 (1) 3 and 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.