특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the first crime among the defendant's case shall be reversed.
Defendant is the first offense of the judgment of the court below.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and the second crime as decided: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable;
[Defendant 1] Although each fraud of the crime of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below constitutes a substantive concurrent crime due to the lack of the unity and continuity of the criminal intent, and the identity of the method of the crime, it should be deemed a comprehensive crime, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) was stated as the grounds for appeal that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles. However, as seen below by the prosecutor, this part was modified
2. Determination
A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to the violation of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below against the defendant from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)", "Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act", "Article 347 (1), 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act", and this court permitted this.
Therefore, the part concerning the first crime in the judgment of the court below against the defendant was not maintained as it is due to the change in the subject of the judgment.
B. We examine the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing as to the second crime of Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized both of them, and the defendant paid 300 million won to the victim H and paid 300 million won, and the fact that H does not want punishment against the defendant is a favorable sentencing condition for the defendant
However, the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below was committed by deceiving the defendant that he would give a lot of profits if he invests in golf-related sales business, etc. to H, thereby defrauding the victim H with KRW 332.9 million, and the amount of damage is significant, and the defendant is the same.