사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended sentence) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Before the public prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds for appeal, the term “a crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, with respect to a crime for which judgment among concurrent crimes has not been rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity and the same
In addition, even if there are a number of crimes for which judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and conclusive, all of the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be deemed to be concurrent crimes with the crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in this case, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where all of the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive with respect to a crime
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008). B.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Southern District Court on October 30, 2009 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 7, 2009 (hereinafter “first preceding conviction”), and the court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for August 21, 2010 for fraud (hereinafter “second preceding conviction”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2010 (hereinafter “second preceding conviction”), since all of the crimes of this case were committed from June 24, 2008 to September 1, 2008, which was before the date the judgment of the second and second criminal crimes became final and conclusive, all of the crimes of this case and each of the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes as prescribed in Article 37 of the Criminal Act and are related to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.