Since two cases are related cases in the appellate court, each judgment of the first instance is reversed by conducting a consolidated trial.

If two rulings were rendered in the court of first instance as a result of a separate hearing of two cases, and the two cases were consolidated in the appellate court as related cases, this constitutes a case where it is impossible to maintain the judgment of first instance as it is a ground for ex officio trial, and thus, each judgment of first instance should be reversed.

Articles 11, 300, and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant

Seoul District Court Sungdong Branch (76 Gohap16 16,444) and Seoul District Criminal Court (76 Gohap272)

The lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment against Defendant 1 shall be included in the above sentence against the said Defendant.

The seized evidence Nos. 1 (one copy of the execution certificate of the first instance trial), 2 (one copy of the execution certificate of the first instance trial), 5-2 (one copier of the same police station), 10 (one copier of the same police station), 11 (one rubber), 21-1 through 6 (one copy of the execution certificate of the first instance trial), 23 (8 copies of the execution certificate of the first instance trial), 4 of the attached Table 27 (one copy of the judgment) shall be confiscated, respectively.

Defendant 2 and 3’s appeal are dismissed.

120 days out of the number of days of detention in the court prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the sentence of the original sentence against the above accused.

1. Determination on Defendant 1’s appeal

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: First, the defendant did not have committed the crime of indictment, but the court below found him guilty, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affect the judgment of the court below, and second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, first of all, the first ground for appeal is examined, and the various evidences duly adopted by the court below (in particular, the confession that the defendant led to the crime in the court below) are examined in light of the records. Thus, the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

Then, the second judgment of the court below is rendered ex officio, and the second judgment of the court below is rendered in two rulings of the Seoul District Court Sungdong Branch 76 Mahap16 and 44 76 Mahap272 76 Mahap272 , but the second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in order to consolidate the second judgment, and the second judgment of the court below is reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member is again decided.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of the same defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 25 of the Criminal Act provides that the facts stated in the judgment No. 76 and No. 44 are as follows; Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 3 (1) (2) (4) shall be counterfeited; Article 225, Article 229, Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the facts stated in the judgment No. 1 and No. 5 of the Criminal Act are as follows; Article 27 of the Criminal Act provides that each of the facts stated in the judgment No. 1 and No. 44 shall be recorded in the judgment No. 75 of the Criminal Act; Article 25, Article 25 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the judgment No. 1 and Article 7 of the Criminal Act; Article 25 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the judgment No. 5 of the Criminal Act; Article 25 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the judgment No. 1 and Article 7 of the same Act shall be included in the judgment No. 5 of the judgment No. 2 of the Criminal Act;

2. Determination on Defendant 2 and 3’s appeal

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the above defendant et al. is as follows: First, the same defendant et al. did not have committed the principal offense; however, the court below found the defendant et al. guilty; and the judgment of the court below is erroneous because the decision of the court below on the defendant et al. is too unreasonable.

In light of the records, first of all, the evidence duly admitted by the court below after examining the evidence can be fully admitted to the facts charged by the defendant et al., and even after examining the case records, there are no errors of law as pointed out in the arguments in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and the following circumstances are examined in detail: the motive, means, result, degree of damage, age, character and conduct of the defendant et al., the age of the defendant et al., character and environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for the punishment lawfully investigated by the court below, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant et al., it is not thought that the determination of the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant et al. is proper and too unreasonable, and therefore, the grounds for appeal by the

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal by the defendant, etc. shall be dismissed, and 120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of the judgment shall be included in the sentence of the judgment below pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)