사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The crime of fraud, fabrication of private document, and uttering of private document against the defendant in the judgment of the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Fact-finding (1) The case of 2013 Highest 8051 as indicated in the judgment of the court below is only prepared by C with the consent of the vehicle security loan, and there was no intention to forge the documents or to defraud the loans.
(2) As to the case of 2014 Godan2958 as indicated in the judgment below, T does not deliver the vehicle and did not perform the agreement, but did not have acquired the vehicle, and the amount received from the victim R is not only KRW 40 million but also KRW 25 million.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Examining the records of this case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant, at the Seoul Southern District Court on June 14, 2013, sentenced 2 years of suspended sentence to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud, 160 hours of probation and community service, and became final and conclusive August 26, 2013.
Therefore, since each crime of fraud, fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, and larceny are not in the relation of concurrent crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, the punishment should be sentenced to two orders pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below sentenced one year and six months of imprisonment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes.
B. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's assertion under the title "as to the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Conclusion.