사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) (hereinafter “instant summary order”) rendered a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the facts charged in the instant summary order and the facts charged constitute a single comprehensive crime under Article 24501 of the Incheon District Court’s 2015 High Order (amended by December 22, 2015; hereinafter “instant summary order”) were different from the facts charged in the instant summary order. However, since the facts charged in the instant summary order and the facts charged in the instant case differ in time, hospital, type of accident, etc., the lower court is in the relation of concurrent crimes, not a single comprehensive crime under Article
It is reasonable to view it.
2. Determination
A. In the event that property crimes, such as fraud, constitute a single and continuous crime against the same victim repeatedly commits the same kind of crime under the single and continuous criminal intent, each of such crimes may constitute a single comprehensive crime.
The unity and continuity of the criminal intent were the method and mode of individual crimes, motive for the crime, time interval between each crime, and whether there was a interruption or renewal of the criminal intent, i.e., the occurrence of a subsequent crime, while the use of the same opportunity or relationship continues.
Based on logical and empirical rules, reasonable determination should be made by examining closely whether there are any circumstances to see, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). (b) The lower court, while explaining the grounds for determination, deemed that the facts constituting a single comprehensive offense among the facts charged in the instant summary order and the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced to acquittal on the grounds of the summary order in the instant case.
The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the circumstances stated by the court below.
1) The facts constituting the instant summary order are as follows: (a) hospitalization costs, etc. are incurred by the insurance company (Korean currency life, teaching life, modern sea, and AIG non-life insurance) in a way of hospitalization in spite of the Defendant’s absence of any illness or injury requiring hospitalized treatment.