사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Of the crimes of No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, it is listed in the annexed Table 1 to 15.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.
In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed or the sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014. According to the records in this case, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months in the course of fraud, etc. at the Incheon District Court on November 25, 2010 and two years in the suspension of execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the first sentence”); on April 6, 2012, the Incheon District Court sentenced four months in imprisonment for fraud; on April 14, 2012, the judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the second sentence”); and on January 8, 2015, the judgment was finalized on August 12, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the third preceding sentence”); and on August 3, 2015, both the crime and the crime referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the preceding paragraph were committed before the final and conclusive.
However, among the crimes in this case, the crime of fraud listed in 16 No. 1 of the List 1 of the Crimes in the judgment of the court below against the victim C (the crime of fraud in the form of No. 1) and the crime of fraud against the victim F (the crime of No. 2 in the form of No. 1) committed after the date when the judgment of the court of first instance has become final and conclusive. Thus, the crime of fraud with the third person committed before the date when the judgment of the court of first instance has become final and conclusive cannot be judged at the same time at the same time. Therefore, the punishment cannot be imposed, or mitigated
Nevertheless, the lower court committed the crime of the preceding part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the instant case, which did not constitute concurrent crimes.