beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
PR and PS shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for each year, and Defendant PTS shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant PR and the sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) are too unreasonable.
B. On April 7, 2017, Defendant PT (1) and the misunderstanding of the legal principles did not know that he was in flight at night at QE company at QE company, and the Defendant knew that he was in flight after hearing A’s talks on April 8, 2017, but he continued to stay in QX because he could not drive a person who was found to be in flight as a member of the Board’s status.
After that, A, under a contract with the OP, borrowed a mobile phone and borrowed it, borrowed the mobile phone under the name of the defendant, and QW did not know that there was funds or goods necessary for the escape of the bank at the time of having QW received the bank from the joint defendant PS.
An act of offering apartment to A also provides convenience to A until A is the case of OP contract. Since the act of the defendant does not directly aim at the escape of the criminal, it does not constitute a crime and is not so.
Even if it is an act with social reasonableness, there is no illegality.
(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not somewhat weak for the determination of Defendant PR and PS’s unfair argument about sentencing is disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, Defendant PR is closely related to A, and Defendant PS is subordinate staff in charge of security service of A, and all the Defendants were in a position that it is difficult to refuse A’s instructions, and there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances of the crime, such as the fact that the period of the crime is not long, the Defendants did not recognize and seriously reflect the mistake, Defendant PR is the primary offender, and Defendant PS is not prior criminal records or fines exceeding the same kind of criminal records or fines.