(a) In determining the amount of profit which is estimated by Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, whether all accomplices in the crime should be the basis of the total amount of profit received (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that since the seriousness of the punishment is not severe through the amendment before and after Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Act should be applied before

A. If a crime of fraud is committed jointly, the accomplice cannot be exempted from liability for the amount of profit received by himself as well as the amount of profit received by another accomplice. Thus, in determining the amount of profit which is equivalent to the application of Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, if all accomplices of the crime determine the amount of profit, the sum of the amount of profit received by

B. Even if Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was amended on December 31, 1990, if the profit acquired by the crime is 500 million won, there is no seriousness of the punishment before and after the amendment, and there is no gravity of the punishment, the law prior to

A. (B) Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 4291 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 4291 of Dec. 31, 199

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91No1277 delivered on June 27, 1991

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

Each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsels are examined together.

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendants guilty of each crime as to the defendants is just, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

The main points of the lawsuit on this point are to criticize the fact-finding and evidence preparation of the court below, which is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, and is ultimately groundless.

If a crime of fraud is jointly committed, the accomplice cannot be exempted from the liability for the amount of profit received by another accomplice as well as the amount of profit received by him. Therefore, in determining the amount of profit, which is equivalent to the application of Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the total amount of profit received by all accomplices in the crime should be the basis.

The amount of profit acquired by the crime of fraud in Article 1 of the judgment of the court below with respect to Defendant 2, which is determined by the court below, is 50 million won in total, which is received by the defendant 30 million won and 200 million won received by other accomplices. Even if the above Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was amended on December 31, 1990, this case does not meet the seriousness of the punishment through the amendment before and after the amendment. Therefore, the argument that the court below is justified in applying the corresponding provision of the Act prior to the amendment of the corporation at the time of the action with respect

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)