Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The allegation in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a new argument that was filed after the appeal was not timely filed (see Supreme Court Order 2010Mo1741, May 13, 2011). However, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal, but it can be deemed as an ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, it is ex officio examined in the following Section 2-A.

On February 6, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and three months for the crime of embezzlement, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive. The criminal facts of the final and conclusive judgment and the facts charged of the instant case are all related to a blanket crime.

Therefore, res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment extends to the facts charged in this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence (7 million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. (1) On the issue of res judicata effect, the Defendant was engaged in the business of receiving and selling communications equipment from the victim by concluding a contract on consignment of communications equipment such as the victim ENT for subscription to and opening of mobile communications services with the victim on April 15, 2007.

On January 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) pretended to have opened one cell phone (the serial number No. 6 flus 16 flus (M, market price No. 99,900)) in a normal condition; (b) embezzled one cell phone of the victim who was in the custody of the victim by using a false contract, etc. entered into under the name of H that was forged; and (c) subsequently, around three months after the end of the said period, sold the same arbitrarily to a person in unsound name; or (d) embezzled one cell phone of the victim who was in the custody of the victim for the purpose of securing collateral or repayment

B) On December 12, 2015, the Defendant of the 2017 Highest 3211 case was engaged in the business of receiving and selling the victim’s communications equipment by concluding a contract on consignment of communications equipment, such as subscription to and subscription to mobile communications services with the victim L, cellular phone for openings, tables, etc.

The Defendant was forged on January 31, 2016.