사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has engaged only in construction business for at least ten years. In light of the fact that the Defendant was engaged only in construction business, the Defendant was running business after the discharge, resulting in the shortage of funds, did not take personal profits from the money acquired, the crime finalized on November 27, 2014, and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive on November 27, 2014, are in ex post concurrent crimes, and the Defendant was living in the burden to be responsible for the expenses incurred by the births who died in the state of plants, support the baby with poor mobility, and is making best efforts to repay and reach an agreement, the punishment imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on June 4, 2009 at the Seoul Western District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2009 (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment No. 1”). On November 4, 2010, the court was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the same court on November 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment No. 2”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 19, 2014 (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment”) and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on September 19, 201 and became final and conclusive on November 27, 201 of the same year (hereinafter “third final and conclusive judgment”), and the offense No. 3 of the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a crime under Article 3 of the final and conclusive judgment and a crime under Article 108 of the final judgment.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 3 and equity in relation to each of the crimes of this case committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 and 2, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is examined as above.