사기미수등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B of a fine of 5 million won, and Defendant B of this case.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court [the sentence of two years of suspended execution (the first sentence in the imprisonment of eight months), two years of suspended execution (the second sentence in the imprisonment of two years), and 120 hours of community service order (the second sentence in the imprisonment of two years), Defendant B, and Q: each fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on Defendant Q’s ex officio determination, the records show that Defendant Q’s judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 2018. According to the records, the Seoul High Court sentenced Defendant Q to imprisonment for a period of seven years in total for a crime, such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), [the period of two years in suspension of the execution of imprisonment for perjury at the Seoul Central District Court on August 23, 2012 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 1, 2013], and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months and six months as of the date before and after the judgment became final and conclusive, and each of the crimes of this case committed after February 1, 2017 and each of the crimes of this case cannot be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39 of the Criminal Act cannot be considered to maintain the relationship between the two crimes and each of the crimes of this case after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the judgment of the lower court is more mitigated or exempted.
On the other hand, the court below held that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each of the crimes of this case against Defendant Q, which was finalized on November 27, 2014 as stated in all of the judgment below, are concurrent relations after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
However, the above crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is committed before the final judgment of perjury, and since each of the crimes of this case was committed thereafter, it could not be judged concurrently with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which became final and conclusive, Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act does not apply.
B. Determination on Defendant A’s ex officio determination on Defendant A’s assertion