사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
The defendant against the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 1 year) that the original court rendered is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. This court held a joint hearing of the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of second instance, but the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court on March 20, 2015 and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on March 28, 2015. Thus, since the crime of fraud in the judgment of the court of first instance committed after the final and conclusive judgment and the crime of fraud in the judgment of second instance committed before the final and conclusive judgment do not constitute a single sentence because they do not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should not be reversed ex officio on the ground of the merger, and
B. Although the Defendant was punished for the crime of fraud several times, the Defendant again committed the instant fraud during the period of repeated crime of the same crime, and the means of deception is considerably poor.
Most of the damages have not been recovered and have not received a letter from the victim.
There are no new special circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be reflected in sentencing after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances that are the sentencing conditions appearing in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the first instance court is not deemed to be too heavy beyond the reasonable discretion, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.
C. The judgment of the court below on the allegation of unfair sentencing against the second instance judgment has the record of being punished twice for the same kind of crime, and the amount of damage is considerably large and the means of deception are considerably poor.