사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. To examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, and to take money by deception several times against the same victim in fraud, if the criminal intent is single and if the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8251 Decided April 28, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8858 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). The crime of fraud of this case is committed by the Defendant on the false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, even though he did not have a corporate bonds-related relationship and did not have any intent or ability to repay the money from the victim, he/she shall make an investment in the friendship who operates the bonds-related business and would pay the principal after one year after making an annual payment of 2% of the profits.” This shall be deemed to have been granted property equivalent to KRW 50 million in total from January 4, 2016 to February 4, 2017 from the victim, as stated in the annexed crime list of crimes, and this shall be deemed to have been committed by the Defendant through deception at the same time with the same victim’s own name, but shall be deemed to have been committed through deception through the same means as a single criminal victim.
Therefore, the crime of fraud in this case is deemed to be one comprehensive crime.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of fraud in this case was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of crime, thereby affecting the conclusion
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.
[The reasons for the judgment of multiple times] criminal facts and summary of evidence.