The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A on October 2012, obtained 400,000 won from the victim on or around 10,000 won. (2) In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, the lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution, and 2 million won of fine) that the lower court declared against the Defendants is unreasonable.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of Defendant B, the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.
A. On November 21, 2013, the judgment of the court below was rendered ex officio (defendant A), and the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court on June 6, 2014, and became final and conclusive on June 6, 2014. The crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive is in a concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case is determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity in cases where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.
B. On October 2012, the lower court held that it is reasonable to view that A had obtained 400,000 won from the victim solely with a separate criminal intent regardless of the Defendant as to the facts charged of fraud, and that even when comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired 40,000 won from the victim in collusion with A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it does not seem that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.
C. We also examine the prosecutor’s and the prosecutor’s assertion on unreasonable sentencing.
The crime of this case is committed.