beta
Text
Defendant
The judgment of the court below against A excluding the part concerning gambling and application for compensation order.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants, unlike the victim E’s statement, notified the victim E of the price of a used-in invested vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”). The price of the said vehicle exceeds the price of the new vehicle for reasons such as the condition and remodeling of the said vehicle at the time of sale of the said vehicle, and did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendants [the defendant A (the first instance court: the imprisonment of one year and eight months; the fine of three million won; the compensation order of 4.8 million won for the applicant F, the second instance court: the imprisonment of six months); and the imprisonment of six months for the defendant B] is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio judgment (Defendant A) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.
This Court held a joint hearing of each appeal against Defendant A’s judgment, and the remaining offenses except gambling offenses among the judgment below against Defendant A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment where concurrent crimes are aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the remainder of the judgment below against Defendant A except for the part concerning the occupation of gambling and application for compensation order is no longer maintained.
B. In light of the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous in its determination on the assertion of mistake of facts.
In special circumstances, the results of the first deliberation and the further examination of evidence conducted until the conclusion of the appellate trial.