특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
2. The judgment of the court below in Article 2.
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant, at the Incheon District Court, sentenced three years of imprisonment for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (2012 Gohaphap1226), (2) years of imprisonment for the crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on November 23, 2012 (3) the same court on August 9, 2013, sentenced eight months of imprisonment for the crime of fraud (2) to each of the judgment; (2) on the grounds of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant appealed each of the judgment on the grounds of unjust sentencing.
B. On October 31, 2013, the judgment of the party prior to the remanding of the case, after combining the aforementioned cases, acquitted the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) on the grounds that there is no proof of the crime, and found the guilty guilty of each of the charges of fraud, the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 on the grounds that these crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced each of the defendants to
C. As to this, the prosecutor appealed on the acquittal portion on the grounds of misapprehension of legal principles and omission of judgment, and the defendant also appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing
The Supreme Court rejected all the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant on May 16, 2014. However, even if the crime of the first instance judgment and the crime of the second instance judgment constitute a case where the punishment should be separately determined in the middle in a final judgment, the judgment before remanding the case constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, the guilty portion (the first and second judgment) of the judgment before remanding the case ex officio is reversed and remanded to this court.