beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.07.18 2018노1539

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three months.

Reasons

1. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Considering that the nature of the instant crime is not good, and that the Defendants committed the instant crime again despite the fact that the Defendants had been subject to criminal punishment or suspension of indictment for the same crime, strict punishment against the Defendants is necessary.

However, the Defendants’ mistake is divided by the Defendants, and the Defendants agreed with the victim H at the lower court, and the victim us did not want to be punished by the Defendants by paying all the amount of damage to the bank in the first instance trial. In the case of Defendant C, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of concurrent crimes with the judgment at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to fraud for which the judgment of the instant crime became final and conclusive, embezzlement and the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In addition, considering the Defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: “The defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for embezzlement at the Seoul Western District Court on June 8, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 16, 2016.

With the exception of adding "," it is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, respectively;