사기등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
The defendant is punished against the crime of fraud 1076, which is the second sentence 2014 of the judgment below.
1. The lower court, within the scope of the trial of this Court, dismissed the prosecution against the Defendant as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers D among the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the Defendant guilty only for the remaining facts charged, and only the Defendant filed an appeal against the aforementioned conviction.
Therefore, since the judgment of dismissal by the court below was separated and confirmed as it is, only the guilty part of the judgment of the court below belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles did not intend to acquire money from the victims, or there was no intention to acquire money from the victims.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the records show that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment with labor at the Ulsan District Court on May 29, 2007 and that the judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2008. Among each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the crime of fraud and the above judgment, for which the crime of fraud and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2008, among each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant, are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment against the above crime of fraud shall be imposed on the second part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is to be held simultaneously. In this regard, the judgment of the court below that excessive it cannot be maintained.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, namely, ① from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court’s court, the victim C, from the Defendant.