logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.07.12 2013노1504
사기등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below against the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant A is against his mistake, and that the damage suffered by collateral security holders is fully repaid by a loan brokerage company by receiving a high amount of fees in cash.

B. Considering that Defendant B’s mistake is against himself, that the Defendant committed the instant crime beyond the suspicion in the economic difficulties, that there was no benefit acquired in return for the instant crime, and that the Defendant experienced difficulties that the Defendant is responsible for the sick time of her husband, who is the patient with the terminal race certificate, and for the livelihood of her family, the sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in August) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although there are circumstances such as the fact that the defendant has no history of punishment more than a fine, and that the defendant has committed a mistake when he was sentenced to the judgment of unfair sentencing, the defendant prepared and led the crime of this case in advance, and the defendant did not make an active change in damage even though the amount of profit acquired by the defendant is reasonable (the defendant pointed out that the loan brokerage company has subrogated to the mortgagee who is the victim, but this is merely a loan brokerage company) and all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, which are conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, are considered as being too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without any history of punishment more than a fine, and Defendant’s trial.

arrow