특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The third original judgment shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Ⅰ. The judgment of the court of first instance on the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes in the judgment of the court of third instance on the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that there is a conviction in the case of the 2007No1196, 2008No2365, Oct. 16, 2010, which became final and conclusive on Oct. 16, 2010. Thus, each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance are not concurrent crimes, and each of the above crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes between the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
The second judgment of the court below acquitted the victim X on the charges of fraud, and this court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against this case, as follows.
On the other hand, on December 22, 2011, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of aiding and abetting an offender at the Incheon District Court, etc., and on August 21, 2012, the appellate court's judgment (2012No238-1 (Separation) was indicated as 2012No238 because it was before the separation of this court's lawsuit on August 21, 2012, and the case number which was issued by the judgment in the third instance judgment is indicated as it is for convenience.) has become final and conclusive. Since the crime of the judgment in the third instance is related to the crime of the above 2012No238-1 case and the crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act concurrently with the crime of the judgment in the third instance, the sentence should be pronounced in consideration of equity with the case
In the end, there is a ground for ex officio reversal on the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the third judgment of the court below is still meaningful, so it will be examined below.
Ⅱ. On the summary of the grounds for appeal against the first judgment of the defendant and convenience in the determination thereof, the defendant's assertion of the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by each crime (victim) as stated in the holding of the original judgment shall be examined and judged.
1. Part G of the victim [209Gohap807].