beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B for eight months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to each punishment (three years of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) that the court below sentenced to the defendants is improper.
(The defendant B explicitly withdrawn the allegation of illegality of confiscation on the date of the first trial of the court of first instance). 2.
A. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A. The crime of this case is the organized and intelligent crimes of telephone financial fraud, which defrauds money to many unspecified victims, and the crime of this case is hard to regulate because the crime is very closely and systematically planned, and there is a need for strict punishment, and the crime does not completely recover from damage up to now, considering the number of victims and the amount of damage, etc.
However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s acknowledgement of the facts of the crime and reflects his mistake; (b) there is no other criminal record in Korea; (c) the degree of participation in the crime is relatively minor compared to the principal offender; (d) the profits acquired by the Defendant appears to be much smaller than the amount acquired by the crime of this case; (b) there is no other criminal record in Korea; (c) the Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (d) the motive, background, means and consequence of the crime of this case; and (e) other circumstances that are conditions for the sentencing of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, criminal records, criminal records, and family relations, the lower court’s sentence is somewhat somewhat unreasonable to maintain it as it is, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion has merit.
B. In light of the content, period, and size of exchange of the instant crime committed by Defendant B, Defendant B’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the crime’s nature is not less complicated, and Defendant B is the same crime.