사기등
The judgment below
The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant U.S.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too heavy (one year of imprisonment and one million won of fine).
2. Ex officio determination
A. According to the records, on February 10, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months in the Gwangju District Court’s Net Branch on February 18, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 18, 2011.
Therefore, since the fraud crime against U.S. committed before the above judgment among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below is related to the crime for which the above judgment became final and the crime for which the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes, one punishment shall be imposed in consideration of the equity between the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive with respect to the crime of fraud against U.S. who did not receive a judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the remaining facts constituting the crime
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which committed both the crime against U and the crime committed by the defendant after the judgment became final and conclusive, and sentenced all the facts constituting concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
I would like to say.
B. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where any one of the grounds of the judgment was omitted while a judgment of conviction was rendered, the facts constituting an offense, the summary of evidence, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes shall be clearly indicated in the grounds of the judgment of conviction, and where any of the grounds of the judgment was entirely omitted, it constitutes a ground for reversal as a violation of law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4701, Jun. 28, 2012). However, the lower court, while rendering a judgment of conviction against the Defendant, omitted the summary of the evidence proving the