사기등
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
§ 1.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that there is no fact that the Defendant prepared an investment agreement with the victim or settled sales proceeds with the victim, and there is no fact with the victim at the time of the sale of the iron, etc., the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to sell the iron nursery at the time of borrowing or receiving investment of the instant money from the victim. Therefore, even if the Defendant was found to have taken the possession of the instant money by deceiving the victim as in the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The second sentence (two years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions of the Defendant (as to the lower judgment of the second instance).
2. Determination
A. Ex officio determination: (a) Article 153 of the Criminal Act provides that when a person who has committed perjury under Article 152 of the Criminal Act surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the foregoing case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted; and this shall also apply to the offense of perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1820, May 11, 2006); and (b) according to the records, the Defendant did not take necessary measures to mitigate the punishment against the Defendant, notwithstanding the fact that he/she voluntarily surrenderss to the prosecution on October 24, 2012 (the instant case and the Jeonju District Court 2010Da13478, Jun. 1, 2006) of the relevant civil and criminal case (the loans of this case and the Jeonju District Court 2010No13297, Oct. 24, 2012).
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the self-denunciation of perjury, and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant is no longer maintained.
B. On August 1, 2006, the summary of the charges No. 1 of the Prosecutor’s 1’s misunderstanding of facts against the prosecutor’s judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (a) around August 1, 2006, the Defendant is running the Victim D around