유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
Defendant
A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. On the date of the first trial of the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the instant court jointly committed the instant facts charged by the Defendants on the date of the first trial of the trial of the court, and the Defendant against the Defendant, “The Defendant explained the Victim BC as to the new details near Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul around April 13, 2017, as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged (the Defendants’ joint offence part), and received KRW 3 million from the injured party as investment money, and received KRW 48 million in total from around that time to May 9, 2017, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Form.
As a result, the Defendant applied for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the addition of the charges charged by Defendant A on the sole charge of the crime, and this Court permitted it on September 12, 2018 at the second trial date.
Where several acts or continuous acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period of time with a single and continuous criminal intent, and the legal interests of such damage are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime in total.
However, in cases where the unity and continuity of a criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005). The facts charged for the single crime committed against a criminal defendant A and the facts charged for the single crime committed by a criminal defendant A added in the trial at the time and the original facts charged for the joint crime committed against the criminal defendant A are closely and the damage legal interests are identical. However, although each place of crime differs, and each place of crime differs, and it is difficult to see that the unity of the criminal intent is recognized because there is a difference in whether the defendant A was active as the head of the regional center at the macro-port port, and whether there is a conspiracy, it is not a comprehensive concurrent crime but a substantive concurrent crime.
Therefore, the prosecutor's addition of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts by Defendant A in the trial of the case is the modification of the bill of amendment.