사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, every five years.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to the punishment (for defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment, and defendant B: 6 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the provisions of Articles 354 and 328 of the Criminal Act of ex officio determination, the punishment for fraud between lineal blood relatives, spouse, relatives living together, family members living together, or their spouses shall be exempted, and the prosecution may be instituted only when there is a complaint among other relatives.
According to the records, the victim BM is recognized as a meeting of the defendant B, and the victim AX appears to be a colon of the defendant A and not living together with the above defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant filed a complaint. ③ The victim BN, BO, BP, Q, BP, BS, BS, BU, BU and BV are related to the defendant B's birth and his/her spouse, her spouse, earlycar, mother, 5 and 6 degree of blood relatives, etc., and they are not living together with the above defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the above victims filed a complaint.
Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant B, the part of fraud against Defendant B (No. 180,289 No. 180,289 among the crimes committed in annexed Table 1 as indicated in the judgment below) should be exempted from punishment pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the part of fraud against Defendant A (No. 458,576, 1176, 1257 No. 458, 576, among the crimes committed in annexed Table 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below) against Defendant B and the part of fraud against Defendant B (no. 76, 168, 168, 189, 216, 217, 2236, 276, 278, 281, 278, 278, 3713, 3715, 375 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the public prosecutor still dismissed the indictment against Defendant A.