[2] The scope of appeal in a case where only two concurrent crimes were described in the petition of appeal concerning one of the crimes for which two punishments are sentenced, but the remaining crimes were also stated in the statement of grounds of appeal

[2] In light of the provisions of Article 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that there is no provision that the scope of appeal shall be specified in the petition of appeal under the current laws and regulations, and that appeal may be filed against a part of the judgment in the whole of the judgment, it is reasonable to view that the appeal against the whole judgment is an appeal in a case where the appellate brief states the grounds for appeal as to the remainder of the crime even though the two punishments are stated in the petition of appeal and the punishment for the remaining one is not stated in the petition of appeal.

Examining the adopted evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money, etc. at the time of borrowing or paying the borrowed money or lending credit card from the victim on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of defraudation in fraud, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. According to the records, the first instance court deemed the crime of fraud of this case and the crime of violation of the Medical Service Act as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced each of the crimes of this case to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and the crime of violation of the Medical Service Act to a fine of two million won, respectively. Accordingly, the petition of appeal submitted by the defendant at the first instance court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, but is dissatisfied with the judgment, I file an appeal. However, the appellate brief submitted by the defendant's defense counsel at the lower court stated that "I will file an appeal. I will file an appeal." However, the appellate brief submitted by the defendant was committed in the form of a daily allowance after the bankruptcy of the tin Hospital, and the violation of this part of the Medical Service Act is a minor case corresponding to a fine of three million won or less, and thus

In light of the provisions of Article 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that the scope of objection shall be specified in the petition of appeal under the current laws and regulations, and that a part of the judgment may be appealed, it is reasonable to view the appeal as an appeal to the whole judgment in a case where the grounds for appeal against the violation of the Medical Service Act are stated in the petition of appeal, even though only the punishment for each of the crime of fraud of this case is stated in the petition of appeal and the punishment for the violation of the Medical Service Act is not stated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1937 delivered on November 26, 191).

Therefore, on the premise of the judgment that the defendant appealed to the whole of this case, the revised Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 7077 of Jan. 20, 2004) provides that "the crime for which a judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" under the latter part of Article 37, and thus, each of the crimes of this case and the crime of violation of the Medical Service Act against the defendant constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of each of the crimes of this case should be sentenced to one punishment against the defendant. Accordingly, on August 10, 2001, the defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million with the Labor Standards Act as a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Suwon District Court on September 5, 201 and each of the crimes of this case constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below that held the defendant guilty of each of this case as unlawful judgment.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal by the defendant are inappropriate to invoke the case differently from this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)