사기
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 main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.
"A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced in consideration of equity and where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered concurrently cannot be ruled at the same time with a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive, it shall be interpreted that a sentence shall not be imposed or mitigated by taking into account equity and
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months at the Cheongju District Court on May 29, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the first final judgment”); and (b) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months from November 7, 2007 to December 21, 207 by the Seoul Southern District Court on December 10, 209; and (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months from December 10, 209 to December 21, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the second final judgment”); and (d) the Defendant was not subject to the final judgment by the Suwon District Court on July 6, 2010 to December 31, 2007; and (e) the Defendant was not subject to the final and conclusive judgment by the final and conclusive judgment on July 31, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment”).
Nevertheless, the court below is after the first final judgment became final and conclusive.