The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of 1-B, 2-A, and 4-A.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B (1) asked Defendant B to mediate the sub-lease contract No. 202 and 702 of the E apartment in Sejong-si, and Defendant A notified the victim J of the fact that the former party was Defendant B.
It was known that the injured party was the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-subs
I think, after the completion of the sub-lease contract, there was a plan to return the deposit to the victim by receiving the deposit from the sub-lessee, and therefore there was both the ability and intention of repayment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of fraud is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
Each of the above punishments of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
A. We examine the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal ex officio prior to judgment.
According to the records, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 31, 2013 for the violation of the Rental Housing Act by the Suwon Friwon on October 23, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 31, 2013 (the Suwon District Court 2013 High Court 3459).
Therefore, in the relation between the violation of the above Rental Housing Act and the violation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity and the case of concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the court below sentenced the punishment without considering it, the judgment of the court below is no longer possible in this respect.
B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, but the lower court convicted Defendant B of the instant facts charged by integrating the evidence duly adopted and examined.