사기등
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 1-B of the judgment of the court of first instance
No. 1 to 8 shall be set out in the attached list 2 of the crime sight table.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the first instance court: the fine of one million won; the imprisonment of one year and six months; and the second instance court: six months) of each lower court’s punishment (e.g., the penalty of one million won; the imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 1-2 of the Criminal Code provides that the court of the first instance which made an ex officio determination shall have the relation of concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.
In regard to the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) set forth in [Attachment 2] No. 1 to 8 of the list of crimes set forth in [Attachment 2], a fine of one million won was set and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance.
The second court sentenced the defendant to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months after completing a separate examination with the first court.
The Defendant appealed against each judgment of the lower court, and this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of the appealed cases.
However, since each crime of the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance and each crime in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, Article 1-b of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Part concerning each crime except for the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) listed in [Attachment 2] No. 1 through 8 of the List of Crimes List 2 and the part of the judgment of the court below in the second instance shall not be maintained as it is.
3. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing [in the case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gamb, etc.) listed in the annexed Table No. 1-B, No. 2, No. 1-b, of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the crime committed in the annexed Table No. 1-B, No. 2
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, as stated in its reasoning, was examined, and the first instance court.