beta
Text
The judgment below
Part 1 and 3 of the judgment shall be reversed respectively.
As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, two months of imprisonment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first crime: the imprisonment of 2 months, the second crime as decided: the imprisonment of 10 months and the third crime as decided: the imprisonment of 4 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable; and
2. According to the records of ex officio judgment (the part concerning the first and third crimes in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant may recognize the fact that the judgment was finalized on September 17, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the second sentence”) by the Suwon District Court sentenced “the comprehensive crime of fraud committed between November 28, 2006 and June 28, 2007” by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and with prison labor for not more than ten months (hereinafter referred to as “the second sentence”).
On the other hand, the date of crime No. 1 in the decision of the court below is "A around April 10, 2006," which is prior to the date when the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and since the last day of crime No. 2 in the decision of the court below was "A around June 28, 2007," which is after the date when the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, the crime No. 1 in the decision of the court below and the second in the decision of the court below cannot be sentenced simultaneously at the same time. The court below held that the crime No. 1 in the decision of the court below was a concurrent crime with the crime No. 2 in the decision of the court below and Article 37 in the latter part of the Criminal Act, and determined a punishment in consideration of equity between the crime No. 2 in the decision of the court of first instance and the crime No. 37 in the decision of the court below and the crime No. 39 in the latter part of the Criminal Act cannot be determined at the same time after consideration or omission of the sentence.
3. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing (the part concerning the second offense in the original judgment) is erroneous for the Defendant.