사기
The judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below No. 3 and 4 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 are reversed.
The defendant is among the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., misappropriation) of the lower court’s punishment (e.g., 4 months of imprisonment, 1, 2, 5, and 6 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court), is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the part concerning the crime of Articles 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ground for appeal by the defendant concerning the judgment of the court of second instance prior to the judgment of the court below
The first and second original judgments were sentenced to each of the judgment below, and all of the defendants appealed from the judgment below, and this court decided to consolidate each of the above appeal cases and review them.
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the crime of No. 3 and No. 4 at the time of sale) and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance, which sentenced the defendant, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the parts
3. It is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the crimes of Articles 1, 2, 5, and 6 as indicated in the judgment of the first instance, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following, it is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is recognized and all of the Defendant’s mistake is against this, and that some victims have satisfied and agreed to pay damages.
However, each of the crimes of this case committed repeatedly against many victims, and it cannot be deemed that the nature of the crime is less severe, and the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime, in particular, the defendant has the same record.