Whether the detention warrant issued by habitual fraud has the effect of the charge of simple fraud (affirmative)

As a result of comparing and examining the facts of the crime stated in the detention warrant issued as habitual fraud with the facts of the simple fraud, the above detention warrant also has the effect of a case involving a simple fraud, as long as both parties agree that the defendant acquired the amount of KRW 9,00,000 from the victim on July 27, 1982 as the deposit money for lease.

Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Criminal Court Order 83 seconds48 dated April 29, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

According to the records of the case of the defendant, the Re-Appellant was detained on the same day by the warrant of detention of habitual fraud issued by the judge of the Seoul District Criminal Court on September 7, 1982 and was charged for fraud under 9.29 of the same year (the above case). The above assistance which tried the defendant's case was decided to renew detention 1.28 of the same year (the renewal from November 7 of the same year) and 11.23 of the same year was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 1.6 months for fraud. Since the Re-Appellant's appeal is not filed, the above assistance without prison labor for 12.1, 105 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the renewal from January 7, 1983) and the records of the defendant's appeal cannot be found to be valid by the court below's simple decision to renew detention 1, 205 of the judgment of the Seoul District Criminal Court on the ground that the court below's appellate brief's new decision of this case's appeal No. 972,7.37.39 of this case's appeal No.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)