A. On June 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) obtained a final and conclusive judgment of conviction (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2019No422, hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”) due to the Defendant’s deception of money by deceiving the victim in connection with the loan certificate (the 9th page of the evidence record; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”); (b) the facts charged of this case are the same date and time as the facts recorded in the final and conclusive judgment of this case; and (c) the Defendant made the victim joint and several sureties by deceiving the same contents at the same place as the facts charged in the final and conclusive judgment of this case; and (d) in the event that multiple damages were inflicted on the same victim by deception, the crime of fraud due to each damage is in a mutually competitive relationship. Therefore, res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of this case also pertains to

Therefore, even though the judgment of acquittal should be sentenced to the judgment of acquittal, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts as to res judicata, etc.

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) If a criminal trial becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, it cannot be repeatedly punished for the same offense (Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea), and if a public prosecution is instituted against a case identical with a case on which a final and conclusive judgment has been rendered, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered by means of a judgment. Since the identity of the facts charged or the facts charged is the concept under the Criminal Procedure Act, it is necessary to consider the significance of criminal procedure or the functions of litigation in the criminal procedure. Accordingly, whether the basic facts of two crimes are identical or not can not be grasped solely from the perspective of prior law, without completely excluding the normative elements.