beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for three years, respectively.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a two-year imprisonment), which the court below sentenced to the Defendants, is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.
On October 21, 2019, the prosecutor applied for the correction of the indictment to correct the total amount of damage from “143,300,000” to “143,30,000” to “143,30,000” to “143,30,000” to “143,30,000” to “143,30,000” to “143,30,000” as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime column. Since the court applied for the correction of the indictment to add the charges of joining each criminal organization and activities against the Defendants and to add Articles 114 and 40 to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to each applicable provisions of the Criminal Act. On January 10, 2020, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.
As to this, Defendant A asserts to the effect that Defendant A’s permission for modification of a bill of indictment is unlawful, since the facts charged against the establishment of a criminal organization and activities to be added as an application for modification of a bill of indictment on October 21, 2019 are different from facts charged in the judgment below and the form of such act cannot be evaluated as one act, and the defendant’s defense right is not substantially guaranteed, such as deprivation of opportunity to dispute from the first instance trial.
However, in the event of joining a criminal organization aimed at committing telephone financial fraud and participating in the act of committing telephone financial fraud, the facts charged for joining the criminal organization and the facts charged for fraud based on its activities are in a mutually competitive relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do8600, Oct. 26, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2017No209, May 19, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2017No209, May 19, 2017).