beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant (unfair sentencing)'s punishment sentenced by the court below (two and half years of imprisonment with prison labor and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 6 of the decision of the court below) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too unhued and unfair.
2) The lower court’s determination that did not confiscate the mobile phone (No. 1) used for the instant crime of omission of confiscation is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine both the defendant and the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing as to the defendant and the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.
If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court held that the crime of the second instance was committed against the victims who have an unspecified number of economic and mental distress, and thus, has a significant social hazard. The Defendant, while under the suspension of the execution, forged or uses official documents, etc. while participating in the crime of the second instance while the suspension of the execution period, and acquired a large amount of KRW 485,55,00 from three victims. In addition, the Defendant was seriously affected by the victim without any particular reason; the Defendant took part in the crime of the second instance; the Defendant took part in the crime of the second instance; the Defendant took part in the crime of the second instance; the Defendant’s profits acquired by the Defendant from the crime of the second instance; and the Defendant did not have any profit in relation to the crime of the second instance judgment and the final judgment.
The court below did not change the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial.