The judgment below

Before April 2014, the decision is written on the crime of fraud, and around June 2014, the attached list 1, 2 of the crime of fraud is written.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., fraud around April 2014, and around June 2014, the imprisonment of four months for fraud, and one year for the rest of fraud) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (around April 2014, the part concerning fraud), around June 2014, will be examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal in this part.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 28, 2013 (the above court Decision 2012dan3194) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2013, and the defendant completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Eastern Detention Center on September 27, 2013.

According to the decision of the court below, fraud (attached Form 1 and 2 fraud) around April 2014, and around June 2014, constitutes a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, which is a crime committed within three years after the execution date of the above punishment.

Therefore, in determining this part of the punishment for a repeated crime, the punishment shall be aggravated after the repeated crime is aggravated, but the court below erred by omitting it.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding each of the above fraud can not be maintained as it is.

3. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal (the part on each fraud), and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant, by deceiving a number of victims, acquired a large amount of money.

The nature of the crime is very very difficult in light of the method of deception or the circumstances after the crime.

The defendant had had a record of being punished for the same kind of crime even before, and it seems that he did not endeavor to recover additional damage even after it has reached the trial.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and the age, character, character and environment of the accused.