사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
As to the crime of Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime of Article 2 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment for two months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months) of the lower court is unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. On the other hand, in the case of fraud, where the money is acquired by deception over several occasions for the same victim, only the comprehensive crime of fraud is established if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is the same. If the single and continuous criminal intent is not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862 delivered on February 11, 2000). B.
Of the facts charged in this case, the deception Nos. 1 to 3 of the annexed crime list No. 1 to 3 provides that "the defendant has come to the port prison with the words "the defendant would have come to the meeting of the victim," and that "the defendant would lend the agreement amount to D." on June 20, 2008, the amount of KRW 7 million on July 4, 2008, the amount of KRW 21 million on August 1, 2008, and the amount of KRW 10 million on August 1, 2008, and the deception Nos. 4 through 7 of the annexed crime list No. 1 to 3 shall be delivered to D. The act of deception No. 91 to 4 of the annexed crime constitutes a single crime of fraud, and there is a need to provide a funeral service in the case of the defendant's release to the port prison, and there is a difference between the defendant and the defendant's statement No. 91 to 47 of the annexed crime.
In addition, the crime of fraud set forth in the attached Table 1 to 3 is in the relation of the concurrent crimes set forth in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of fraud set forth in the attached Table 1 to 3, since the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months at the Daegu District Court on September 19, 2008, which became final and conclusive on the same day. Therefore, separate punishment should be imposed for the crime of fraud set forth in the attached Table 1 to 3 and the attached Table 4
C. Therefore, the crime of this case is deemed to be a single comprehensive crime.