The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

From February 4, 2016 to June 21, 2016, among crimes of subparagraph 2 of the judgment of the defendant.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) Fraud of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding an accomplice who shared the instant action should be excluded from criminal facts.

In the case of investment by a joint principal in the name of his family or relative, there is fraud and similar receipt of the nominal owner.

Therefore, this part should also be excluded from criminal facts.

Although similar receipt and fraud crimes are mutually concurrent crimes, the lower court determined them as substantive concurrent crimes.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment, three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) With respect to the act of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, a joint principal offender may be the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact, as the principal offender was found not guilty as to the act of receiving similar goods as the victim.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the determination of the defendant and prosecutor's argument prior to the judgment.

1) In the lower court’s judgment, as shown in the table of crimes attached to the attached Table (2), the fraud of the victim, DS, DT, and DV and the crime received in addition to or combined with amendments to an indictment. The lower court rendered a decision to permit amendments to an indictment containing criminal facts against the above victims on the 10th trial date, and the lower court’s sentence omitted the fraud and the receipt of similar criminal facts against the said victims.

The omitted part of the judgment below, which the court below found guilty, is a crime of fraud from February 4, 2016 to June 21, 2016 and the concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single punishment should be imposed within the scope of aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, from February 4, 2016 to June 21, 2016 among crimes under Article 2 of the judgment of the court below.