사기
The judgment below
The part of fraud against the defendant's victim D is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed). Whether or not the date of appeal is postponed or closed is subject to the court's discretion.
Therefore, even though the court below did not accept a request for postponement of the sentence date after the closing of argument to agree with the victim on the date of sentencing, the court below rejected the request and rendered a ruling.
there is no violation of law in that case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6503 Decided October 28, 2005, etc.). Examining the record in light of the records, the lower court’s litigation procedure did not err by violating the Constitution or law, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years
In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
However, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months from the Seoul High Court on September 12, 2008 for the offering of bribe at the Seoul High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on December 24, 2008, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “A judgment”); (2) on December 2, 2011, the Seoul High Court sentenced three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); (hereinafter referred to as “B judgment”); and (3) on April 3, 2012, the final judgment of the Supreme Court became final and conclusive on April 3, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment”), and the instant judgment of the lower court was subsequently sentenced on January 30, 2013, and the fraud of the victim D among the facts charged in this case was found to be low before the judgment was ①, and ② the fraud committed against the victim G.
Therefore, fraud against victim D and judgment ①.