beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of three million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on September 30, 201 due to occupational breach of trust (hereinafter “the first criminal conviction in the market”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2012 (hereinafter “the first criminal conviction”), and ② on July 6, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced two years of suspended execution with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoices), which became final and conclusive on October 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the second criminal punishment in the market”), and ③ on April 11, 2013, and each of the crimes in this case’s final and conclusive crimes in violation of the latter part of Article 3 of the Criminal Act should be recognized as concurrent crimes in consideration of the following facts, and thus, each of the crimes in this case’s final and conclusive crimes in violation of the latter part of the Criminal Act.
However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the ground that the lower court did not have any scambling of the facts stated only the first and third criminal records in its judgment, and did not have any scambling of the specific contents of the preceding criminal records, and it is difficult to view that the lower court sentenced the instant punishment to the instant crime in consideration of equity with the case where the said judgment is rendered simultaneously
3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is justified.