사기
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A.
1. Of the facts charged against Defendant A regarding the fraud of investment funds in Mongolian Mining Business among the facts charged in the instant fraud, the lower court found Defendant A guilty and sentenced the said Defendant to ten months of imprisonment, and sentenced Defendant A not guilty on the fraud of investment funds in coal trade business. Defendant A filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing regarding the guilty portion of the lower judgment as the grounds for appeal, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal on the acquittal portion. Accordingly, the acquitted portion of the lower judgment against Defendant A was separated and finalized by the limit of the appeal period.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment against Defendant A shall be limited to the above guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and one year and six months of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
3. In light of the Act on the Punishment of the Crimes in this case, the Defendants’ nature of the crime was inferior, and the amount of damage caused by the Defendants’ commission of the crime was very significant to the Defendants. However, the Defendants divided and reflected the Defendants’ mistakes, the Defendants did not have any power to commit the crime, the victims did not want the punishment against the Defendants in the trial, and the Defendants’ age, character, conduct, environment and other sentencing conditions are considered to be too unreasonable in full view of the following factors: (a) the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable.
4. Thus, the defendants' appeal is reasonable, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the part against the defendant B in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and it is decided as follows. Since the application for the compensation order of this case received after the closing of argument in the court of the trial is inappropriate, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Articles 32 (1) 1 and 26 (1).