beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2017노1001

전자금융거래법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds for appeal by the defendant are that the court below's punishment is heavy.

Since the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No. 2016No. 3931, 4624 (Consolidation), which sentenced the Defendant to one year imprisonment with prison labor, became final and conclusive on March 17, 2017, which was after the decision of the lower court was rendered, and the crime stated in the above decision was in a concurrent crime relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court’s determination of punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the above case was adjudicated concurrently is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the judgment of the court below seems to have been considered since the defendant was already sentenced to one year of imprisonment in the above appellate court and was under confinement in the Seoul detention center. The crime of this case is committed again by the same kind of crime despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million in the name of the same crime two times, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and all of the sentencing conditions in the record, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is deemed to be appropriate, and it cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit and thus, the appeal is dismissed. However, considering that the above circumstances appear to have already been reflected in the judgment of the original court, without reverseing the judgment of the original court, all of the facts constituting the crime of the original court’s judgment, “The Defendant was sentenced to one year by imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for a crime of violating the Narcotics Control Act on January 19, 2017, and such judgment became final and conclusive on March 17, 2017,” and “1. A previous conviction: the Defendant’s own court statement, each written judgment, and each written judgment,” and “1. Concurrent treatment: 37 latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be added to each of the facts constituting the crime.”