beta
Text
1.(a)
The judgment below
Part 1 of the judgment with respect to the crime No. 1 is reversed.
B. Defendant 5,00,000 won.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of punishment) of the lower court (e.g. the 1-A-B-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C
2. As to the crime No. 1-D of the judgment below
A. Ex officio, according to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who committed an accusation under Article 156 of the same Act voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. As such, confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment shall be stipulated as the grounds for the necessary mitigation or exemption.
In addition, since there is no legal limitation as to the above confession procedure, it is hard to find that the defendant or suspect of a case was present at the court dealing with the reported case as a witness again and that his report was a false fact before being present at the court dealing with the case, as well as that the defendant or suspect of a case was examined by the court or an investigative agency, and also included in the concept of confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Do1639, Nov. 27, 197; 75Do3316, Feb. 22, 197; 2004Do831, Apr. 9, 2004).
According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can recognize the facts (No. 42 of the evidence list) that led to the confession of the crime without accusation in the process of prosecutor's investigation on August 29, 2012 when the case of accusation against B was not prosecuted. Thus, the court below which did not grant a necessary reduction or exemption on the crime of accusation was no longer maintained.
3. As to the crime No. 1-A, B, and C in the holding of the court below
A. The Defendant is against the Defendant’s confession of all of the instant embezzlement crimes, and the criminal facts such as the crime of breach of trust, etc. finalized by the judgment, and the crime of embezzlement of this case could have been judged as identical to the crime of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the victim’s effect capital stock company is below.