beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to Article 253(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statute of limitations for a public prosecution is suspended in the institution of the public prosecution, and the suspension of the statute of limitations for one of the accomplices has its effect on other accomplicess and runs from the time the judgment in the case becomes final and conclusive. The existence of an accomplice relationship under Article 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is determined by the court to judge the case at which the statute of limitations is at issue at present, and it shall not be bound by the judgment in other courts except
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4621, Mar. 9, 199). In addition, in cases where a person deceptions another party by the exercise of a single criminal intent and acquires money by the same method for a certain period from the same person who is not involved in a mistake as a result of the deception, it is possible to comprehensively observe it and treat it as a single crime, but in cases where the unity and continuity of a criminal is not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not identical, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.
(2) On June 25, 2004, the court below held that the effect of suspending the statute of limitations due to the judgment of conviction of KRW 300 million by E does not extend to the charge of fraud of KRW 100 million against the defendant, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the basic facts constituting the crime cannot be deemed the same, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of KRW 100 million against J cannot be seen as having a relation of a single crime.
Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.