사기등
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
1. Defendant A’s judgment is 2017 Godan3055.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in the event of Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, additional collection, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal against Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the lower court.
Defendant
A on June 5, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business and 2 years of suspended sentence, and was finalized on June 13, 2014. As such, the instant indictment in violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business was stated as the date and time of crime in relation to the receipt of the e-mail card against Defendant A, and the instant indictment in violation of the Act on Special Credit Financial Business. However, according to the records, E transferred the e-mail card to Defendant A immediately after opening the e-mail account with the investigative agency.
The stated facts, the date of opening a new account on June 12, 2014, can be recognized, so the date and time of committing this part of the crime is specified as June 12, 2014.
The crime of violation of the Act on the Financial Business Specializing in the above credit which became final and conclusive is related to the concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity with the concurrent judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
In this regard, the prosecutor was sentenced on June 5, 2014 to four months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution as a violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business at the Seoul Central District Court on June 5, 2014, and the above judgment was finalized on June 13, 2014.
In addition, “the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act was added to “the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act,” and this Court permitted this, so the part against Defendant A among the judgment below was no longer maintained.
3. We examine the judgment of the defendant D's unfair argument of sentencing, and the crime of this case by the defendant D is about the purchase price of official duties.