사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the sentence imposed by the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Youngcheon District Court’s Yeongdeungpo branch on April 28, 2009, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 30, 2010 (hereinafter “final judgment”) and on December 23, 2014, upon being sentenced to one year of suspended execution and five million won of a fine at the Jeonju District Court’s previous judgment on June 18, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment of 2”). The date and time of the crime of having been sentenced to one year of suspended execution among the final judgment of 2, the date of the crime of having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months among the final judgment of 2, 208, and the date and time of the crime of having been sentenced to five million won of a fine among the final judgment of 2, the fact of each of the crimes, from November 1, 2012 to 17, 2017.
B. Therefore, the crime of this case and the crime of this case committed before the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 and the crime of this case committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 are deemed to have been committed before the final and conclusive judgment No. 2 became final and conclusive, and thus, the crime of this case and the crime of this case do not constitute a single concurrent crime after Article 37
In addition, the crime of this case where a fine of KRW 5 million was sentenced among the final and conclusive judgments of this case does not constitute a crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment of this case or a crime where a final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive after the final and conclusive judgment of this case, and thus, the crime of this case and the crime of this case do not constitute a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act
(c)
Nevertheless, the court below held that each of the crimes of this case and the final and conclusive judgment of this case are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
In light of the above, in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, punishment for the crime of this case was sentenced in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 and equity. This is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.