beta
Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The crimes of KRW 500,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant’s act of continuing to meet the same constituent requirements for a certain period of time with a single and continuous criminal intent, and where the benefit and protection of law is identical, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, if multiple crimes are unable to recognize the unity and continuity of a criminal intent in the number of crimes, or if the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do278, May 13, 2005, etc.). The lower court held that there is a relation of a single comprehensive crime as to each of the intimidation 1 to 4 times a year on the list of criminal facts as indicated in the judgment.
In addition, there was no aggravation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.
The act of intimidation Nos. 1 and 2 is adjacent to one month of the date and time, and the means of intimidation is identical and transmitted in the same way. On the other hand, the act of intimidation Nos. 3 and 4 are also adjacent to one another, the means of intimidation is the same as mobile phone text messages, and the transmission and reception cell phone are the same, in light of the same fact that the act of intimidation Nos. 1 and 2 are the same as the act of intimidation Nos. 1 and 3 and 4 as a single criminal act, the two acts of intimidation Nos. 1 and 2 are the relation of each single criminal act as a single criminal act.
I would like to say.
However, in light of the fact that there is a gap between the act of intimidation Nos. 1 and 2 and the act of intimidation Nos. 3 and 4 every year, and that there is a difference between the act of intimidation Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and 4 every year in the same crime list, the act of intimidation Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 every year in the same crime list cannot be deemed as an act based on a single criminal intent, and the act of intimidation Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 every year cannot be deemed as an act based on a single criminal intent.