사기등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the respective punishment of the lower court (the 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor and the 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below against the defendant for ex officio determination was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against all of the judgment below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the two appeals cases.
Since each of the judgment below's crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act that prescribes the choice of punishment (Fraud, choice of imprisonment), Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 217 and 214(1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the amount acquired by the Defendant from the victim E exceeds KRW 350 million; and (b) the amount embezzled is up to KRW 450 million; (c) the Defendant is deemed to have committed the fraud by using personal trust relationship with the victim E; and (d) the amount of the forged securities exceeds its face value.
However, when the defendant was in the trial, the defendant committed the crime of fraud in 2016 order1737 and the crime of occupational embezzlement in 2016 order2057.