사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.
The lower court determined that the fraud committed around June 2016 and the fraud committed on December 8, 2016 constituted a single crime.
However, it is possible to comprehensively observe the crime and apply it to a single crime in case where the other party is deceiving by the exercise of a single crime, and the money is acquired through the same method for a certain period from the same person who is not erroneous as a result of such deception, but in case where the unity and continuity of the criminal's intention are not recognized or the method of the crime is not the same, each crime is a substantive concurrent crime.
(2) In light of the following circumstances, each of the above crimes constitutes a substantive concurrent relationship since it is reasonable to view that each of the above crimes is not recognized to have the unity and continuity of the criminal intent, and there was a suspension and renewal of the criminal intent because it is not the same as the method of the crime, in view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, there exists a interval of time between each of the above crimes for about six months, and each of the above crimes is different in the form of deception, and it is difficult to deem that the crime was committed while the situation where the crime of deception differs in the form of deception, and the conditions where the crime of subsequent crimes continues to use the same opportunity or relationship as the previous crime.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged each crime as a single crime has become unable to be maintained as it is.
3. In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.
[Discied Reasons for the judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court, and summary of evidence.