beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the damaged items of the crime No. 7 and 8 as indicated in the Defendant A’s written judgment of the lower court were recovered, and that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case to prepare living expenses, the sentence (three years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the following: (a) Defendant B’s proposal committed each of the instant crimes; (b) the preparation for the commission of the crime and the disposition of stolen articles was committed by Defendant A; and (c) the degree of participation by the Defendant in the method of viewing the network was insignificant compared to Defendant A; and (b) the punishment imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the method and frequency of the crime, the amount and degree of damage, the circumstances after the crime, the criminal defendant's past punishment records, other circumstances, including the defendant's age, environment, character and conduct, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, the lower court's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s assertion was caused by Defendant A’s proposal to commit the instant crime, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been in the leading position to commit the instant crime by preparing for the commission of the crime and disposing of stolen goods. However, in the course of the larceny crime accompanied by residential intrusion, the Defendant opened the front door by taking advantage of Nogrash (Evidence 1021) and performed the role of viewing the network at the time of committing the Defendant A’s crime. In terms of division of roles, it appears that there is no particular difference with the Defendant A in charge of the theft act. The profits from each of the instant crimes are divided into two parts with Defendant A, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind.