전자금융거래법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 15, 2018 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) and that the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 22, 2019.
Therefore, since the crime of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from Risk Driving) for which the judgment of the court below became final, the punishment for the crime of the court below should be determined after examining whether to reduce or
In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows after hearing.
【Reasons for the Judgment in Dao-written] The summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence admitted by the court in this Court is added to the first head of the crime of the judgment below, “Defendant is sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 15, 2018 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from Dangerous Action) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 22, 2019.” The summary of the evidence was as follows: “1. A previous conviction in the judgment in : Search of the case in 2018 Godan1621(b) and each written judgment in the last part of the evidence is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below
Application of Statutes
1. Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of punishment.