A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

A. Meritorious of legal principles (as to the case of 2014 high-ranking 3764, 2014 high-ranking 4679)

This part of the crime of special larceny is an act that is indispensable to complete this part of the crime of fraud, and is included in the crime of fraud. Therefore, it is considered that it falls under the act of false punishment after the crime of fraud, or that it was committed simultaneously with the crime of fraud.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the first instance court: 4 years of imprisonment and the second instance court: 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

In the case of fraud with the content of taking property advantage, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing the victim's property (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007, etc.).

On the other hand, this part of the fraud committed by the Defendant, etc., even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to finally transfer ownership of each car to Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2, and by deceiving the victims to sell it, and then by deceiving the victims to acquire each money from the victims in the name of the purchase price. Therefore, the crime of fraud is established immediately after the Defendant, etc. received the money from the victims. This part of the special larceny committed is different from the basic facts and legal interests infringed on each of the above frauds, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud constitutes an act of infinite punishment for each of the above crimes, or that it constitutes

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

With respect to the crime of taking shares, even if all materials submitted at the court below and the court below are used, it is difficult to view that the role of the defendant in the above crimes is less severe or simple participation in each of the above crimes. The defendant has the record of criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and even during the period of repeated crime for the same crime, each of the above crimes is an organized and planned crime so that the defendant and the accomplice can not find an accomplice even after the occurrence of the crime by not exposing their identity, and each of the above crimes is an organized and planned crime that takes part in the role of the defendant and the accomplice, and that the crime is not highly good, and the defendant tried to continuously reduce his role before recognizing each of the above crimes, and that the amount of damage from each of the above crimes is considerable, and that the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of special larceny is not easy, and that the crime is not good in the manual, etc.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant conspiredd to commit the act of taking advantage of shares at the time of the trial; (b) the Defendant agreed with Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8 on the part of the victim of the crime of taking advantage of the share capital and paid some of the amount to the said victims in the trial; (c) the said victims did not want to be punished against the Defendant; (d) the victims agreed with Nonindicted 2 of the victim of the special larceny; and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions for the pleadings and the sentencing specified in the records, such as equity between criminal punishment and criminal punishment against the accomplices; (e) character and conduct of the Defendant; (e) the motive and means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc.,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Articles 347(1), 30(a), 331(2), and 331(1)(a) of each Criminal Code (a point of fraud or imprisonment with labor) of each Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Offense of Frauds in Decision 1 of the lower Court and Decision 2014 Highest 5987, Highest 2014 Highest 6895 of the Criminal Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-ok (Presiding Judge) Kim Min-chul