사기
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A is a crime of fraud in the name of a commission for the establishment of the welfare foundation.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court against the Defendants (hereinafter “Defendant A”: 8 months of imprisonment; 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years of suspended sentence”) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (the Defendants withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts at the first trial date). 2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant A’s ex officio.
According to the records, on December 17, 2014, the above defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on August 17, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 25th of the same month.
According to the above facts, among each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the above defendant, the crime of fraud under the name of commission to establish a welfare foundation and the crime of fraud under the name of the executory payment of expenses is established prior to the establishment of the above judgment, and the judgment is established, and the crime of fraud under the name of project expenses is in the relation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of concurrent crimes
Therefore, in the case of fraud under the pretext of fees for the establishment of a welfare foundation and fraud under the pretext of the security for the payment of the deposit money, the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity in the case of the judgment at the same time with the above fraud which becomes final and conclusive under the proviso of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, as well as in the case of fraud under the pretext of fees for the establishment of a welfare foundation, and in the case of fraud under the pretext of the security for the payment of deposit money,
However, the court below erred by misapprehending this, and all of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the above defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
On the other hand, one punishment was imposed.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on concurrent crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
3. The crime of this case in determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant B is deemed to have been committed by Defendant A, and Defendant B is in accordance with Defendant A’s proposal.