사기등
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A Of the lower judgment of the first instance, the order of 2016 senior group 1109, .
The main points of the appeal are examined as ex officio prior to the judgment of the defendant A's ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A.
Defendant
As the case described in paragraphs (1) and (2) through (5) of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court of first instance is merged in the first instance with ① the case of the judgment of the court of first instance 2016 senior group 1109, 2501, and KRW 2501 of the judgment of the court of second instance, the case of the court of first instance 2016 senior group 3537 of the judgment of the court of first instance and KRW 2 through (5) of the judgment of the court of second instance, each of the above crimes is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to one punishment simultaneously pursuant
Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
Defendant
The lower court determined the AE’s appeal by taking account of the following factors: (a) the law is not good; (b) the damage has not been recovered; (c) the recidivism is a second offense during the period of suspension of execution; (d) the confession is made under the unfavorable circumstances; (e) the confession is made under the circumstances at which the same kind of criminal records has been committed several times; and (e) the equality in the case of a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be taken into account when the judgment was rendered together; (e) the separate case is separated from the case at the Busan District Court;
As a result of the Defendant’s endeavor to recover damage, in light of the fact that the victim BB submitted a written agreement that the Defendant would not be punished by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing condition was changed. As such, the lower court’s punishment on the part of the crime No. 1-B of the judgment of the second instance on the part of the crime No. 1-B of the judgment of the lower court is unreasonable.
However, in the case of the crimes of Articles 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the second instance, considering the fact that the defendant was living in an unsatisfying life, which led to each crime while the defendant was living, has dependents, and has been working in order to contribute to society, such as making a long-term gift commitment, the sentence of the court below is too excessive.