beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.31 2018노1364

사기

Text

The part of the first and second original judgments, excluding the rejection of compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the first judgment of the court below, a person who borrowed money from the victim C, C, or J in the part of the crime of fraud against the victim C, J is not the defendant, but F, the defendant has not deceiving the above victims directly or through F, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Shebly, the victim of the second judgment of the court below was well aware of the financial situation of the defendant, and thus there is no fact of deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

First of all, all of the judgment of the court below were sentenced to the first and second judgment against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint trial by combining the above two appeals cases. Since each of the crimes of the first and second judgment against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because it is a single sentence under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Next, according to the records of the second judgment, ① the court below served a copy of the indictment by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings because the whereabouts of the defendant cannot be confirmed, and the defendant was absent.