보험사기방지특별법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal doctrine 1) Each of the crimes in the instant case No. 2017 and 132, constitutes double prosecution, since each of the crimes in the instant case is related to habitual fraud in the instant case No. 2017 senior group 342, this constitutes double prosecution.
2) The lower judgment held that each of the crimes in the instant case No. 2017 and 132, among the instant case No. 2017 and 342, is in the relationship between habitual fraud, habitual fraud, and habitual fraud, and the crime of violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud and the blanket crime.
From the perspective of habitual fraud, the lower court’s choice of imprisonment was against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, since the case No. 2017 and No. 2017 and No. 132 requires a formal trial against the summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million.
B. The punishment of the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied the provision of the applicable law to the name of the crime of 2017 and 132 of the facts charged in the instant case as “the fraud,” and “an attempted fraud,” and applied law as “Articles 352, 347(1), 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act,” and the part of “insurance fraud,” among the facts charged, as “the fraud,” and “an attempted fraud,” respectively, changed the subject of adjudication by permitting the trial.
As above, the changed part and the remaining criminal facts found guilty among the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence in all inclusive crimes or concurrent crimes as seen below. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. As to the assertion that a double indictment constitutes a crime of 2017 and 132 of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below, each crime of 2017 and 132 of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and habitual fraud, and habitual fraud, among the cases of 2017