사기등
The judgment below
The part of the judgment Nos. 1, 3 through 6 shall be reversed.
The 1, 3, and 6 of the judgment of the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the punishment No. 1, No. 3 and No. 6 on the market: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and the punishment No. 2 on the market: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) that the court below made is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the defrauded amount of the crime of fraud in the part 1, 3, or 6 of the holding is a large amount of KRW 225 million in total, the Defendant has not yet paid damages, and the Defendant has many records of punishment for fraud, the Defendant shall be punished with severe punishment.
However, on April 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of one year for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 8, 2012. Each of the above crimes is in the relationship between the crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and takes into account the case of sentencing and equity at the same time, the Defendant is obliged to additionally serve one year of imprisonment with prison labor upon cancellation of the suspended execution of the above crime of fraud, the Defendant is obliged to additionally serve one year of imprisonment with prison labor due to the cancellation of the suspended execution of the above crime of fraud, the agreement with the victim Z in the trial, and all other circumstances constituting the condition
B. Although the part of the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below is found to be against the defendant's mistake, the defendant has many records of being punished for the same kind of crime, and in particular, even after being sentenced to a suspended sentence on April 30, 2012, the defendant committed the crime of this case at the same time during the suspended sentence period, this part of the actual damage amount is deemed to be at least KRW 3-40 million, but not yet recovered from damage, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal against the crimes Nos. 1, 3, and 6 of the decision is with merit. Thus, pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below is 1, 3, through