사기등
The judgment below
The remainder, other than the rejection of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.
1. The defendant's defense counsel in the summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that the terminal price stated in the annexed list 8 of the judgment below was mistakenly calculated in the statement of grounds for appeal, but there is room to harm the defendant's defense counsel that the market price of the "2 mobile phones" is not indicated in the relevant criminal facts and that it is true that the market price was obtained by deceit, and therefore, the above argument is not separately determined.
Of the facts charged in the case of this case No. 2018 Godan1097, the part of the lower judgment No. 8, 19, and 20 in [Attachment 20] No. 11, 3, and mobile phone numbers in [Attachment 11] of the List of Crimes in the lower judgment among the facts charged in the case of this case No. 2018 Godan1134 of the lower judgment is the same.
Therefore, it is necessary to render a judgment of dismissal of public prosecution in accordance with Article 327, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since public prosecution has already been instituted again for the case.
However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, among the criminal facts in the case No. 2018 Godan1097, part 19,20 of the judgment below’s attached crime list No. 8 year 19,000 (hereinafter “instant overlapping part”) among the criminal facts in the case No. 2018 Godan1134 of the judgment below, the following facts are identical to the attached list No. 11, 3 of the judgment below’s crime committed in the case No. 2011, Nov. 28, 2018; and the lower court’s judgment’s case No. 20134, Nov. 29, 2018; and the case No. 201134, Nov. 29, 2018.
If so, the prosecution for the overlapping part of this case constitutes a case in which a public prosecution has already been instituted again, and thus, the dismissal of public prosecution should be sentenced pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Nevertheless, this part is overlooked.