beta
Text
All of the judgment of the court below except for a compensation order shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment of two years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted to the effect that, in the statement of grounds of appeal filed on November 19, 2019, Defendant B’s crime committed by Defendant B constitutes a blanket crime, and thus, Defendant B’s punishment is mitigated. In the statement of grounds of appeal filed on December 17, 2019, Defendant B, on the premise that the crime committed by Defendant B constitutes a blanket crime, on the premise that Defendant B was sentenced to punishment pursuant to the judgment of the court below on the ground that the crime committed by Defendant B constituted a single comprehensive crime, even though Defendant B was sentenced to punishment pursuant to the judgment of the court below on the ground that he had already committed a single comprehensive crime, once again sentenced to punishment to the judgment of the court below on the third ground of the judgment on the crime committed by the single comprehensive
The argument of misapprehension of the legal principles regarding an inclusive crime cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal due to a claim after the deadline for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal has expired, and even if ex officio is examined, where the criminal intent is a single crime and the method of crime is identical, it shall not be deemed that a single comprehensive crime is established, but one crime is established for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). The above argument is without merit.
Each court below's punishment (the first court's judgment against Defendant A: imprisonment of two years, confiscation, and imprisonment of two years, and imprisonment of two years, and the third court's judgment against the Defendants: imprisonment of six months, respectively) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence Nos. 1 and 3 against the Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.
Each court of original judgment rendered a separate judgment against the Defendants, and Defendant A and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of first and third court, and Defendant B filed an appeal against the judgment of second and third court, and this court filed the above appeal.