logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.08.21 2013노2508
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below regarding the crime No. 2, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: one month of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment, the second instance judgment: one year and three months of imprisonment, and the third instance judgment: four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Of the lower court’s punishment, the part of the lower judgment on Article 3 of the Prosecutor’s Act is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this Court tried at a concurrent hearing of three appeals cases against the defendant. Among the crimes of each case deliberated in the trial of the court of first instance, the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment of the court of second instance, the crimes of No. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the judgment of the court of second instance, and the crimes of the judgment of the court of third instance in the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the above part of the judgment of the court of first and second instance and the judgment of the court of third instance cannot be exempted from reversal.

3. We examine the judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, excluding the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance reversed ex officio, and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court of second instance as

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, it seems that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected against the crime set forth in Article 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant agreed with the victim D, and the above crime is in a concurrent relationship with the crime set forth in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on April 13, 2012 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201No1764) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and needs to be considered at the same time as

However, the defendant has been punished several times by imprisonment with prison labor for one year in 2009 and imprisonment for eight months in 2009 with prison labor for two years in suspension of execution, and most of the criminal law lend money for business operation.

arrow