사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The judgment of the court below against the Defendants in the summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment of fine of KRW 5,00,000 is too unreasonable.
2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on October 31, 2013 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2013. Since the offense of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in the relationship between the above crime of fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in this respect.
3. According to the conclusion of the judgment below, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows after hearing.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as that of the judgment below. Thus, all of the facts charged and evidence are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;
1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The sentencing grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include nine times the criminal defendant with the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order, and the damage of this case has not been recovered: Provided, That the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case appears to be contrary to the situation; the crime of this case is in a concurrent relationship between the crime established on November 8, 2013 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the relationship between the crime of this case and the crime of this case should take into account the equity in the case where he was tried together; the amount obtained in this case and other conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive