The meaning of the amount of profit under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes shall not be construed as a provision to the effect that all the amount of profit of each criminal act falling under each of the provisions of the Criminal Code shall be punished as one violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, not a provision to the effect that the amount of profit shall be punished as one violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

Article 3 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (86 High Court Decision 197,1341,86 High Court Decision 1691)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred and seventy days out of the detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is as follows: First, since the bill of indictment was divided into 1-1 of the facts charged; second, since the main sentence and the attached list thereto are different with respect to the amount of profits acquired from the crime of occupational breach of trust; second, if the defendant knew that the amount of profits would be not less than 1 billion won if he borrowed the bill, the court below did not take measures such as demanding the change of the indictment; second, the defendant's statement that the amount of profits would not be less than 1 billion won because it was not less than 60,000 won due to the omission of the bill; second, the court below's decision was not erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the loan of the defendant; second, since the defendant did not have any influence on the loan of this case as stated in the list of the non-indicted 1 of this case; second, the defendant's act of this case was about excess loans that the defendant had committed using his status as the head of the bank; second, the defendant's motive of the above financial institution could not be justified.

In light of the records, first of all, the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's original crime 1-A and B-B (crime List 1 and 2) as judged by the court below, and no error is found in the process of finding the facts in this part, and even if the bill acquired through the above crime was settled, or the amount borrowed by the bill discount was repaid by the bill discount, it does not affect the establishment of the crime, and there is no influence on the attorney's appeal.

However, prior to the determination of the remaining grounds for appeal by the counsel and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor, first, the prosecutor is a single habitual fraud crime, which covers 1-C and Ra's occupational breach of trust as a crime of occupational embezzlement (the prosecutor applied for an additional revision of a part of the facts charged, but the prosecutor did not permit it). Second, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act") provides that the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained. Second, if the sum of the amounts of each criminal act falling under the above Article of the Criminal Act and the amount falls under the above Article of the Criminal Act, it shall be deemed that all of the crimes are punished as a crime of violation of one special law by adding up all the crimes, but it shall not be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the detailed name of each crime under the Criminal Act or the amount of profit per each crime under the above Article, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as a comprehensive provision of the above Article 1 (3).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed as follows.

The summary of the evidence against the defendant who is admitted as a member of the political party shall be as follows: (1) inserting "Habitual" in the first head of 1: (1); (2) acquiring the benefit of the above amount by deceiving by means of delivery; and (2) subparagraph (3) of 1 at original 4:00 on November 15, 1984; (3) forging Dong-gu (name omitted) Dong-dong (name omitted); and (4) under the name of Non-Indicted 3 at the time of embezzlement of KRW 100,00,00,00 which were kept for the above bank; and (4) 6:0,000,000 which were recorded in the name of Non-Indicted 4; and (4) it shall be recorded in the name of 6:0,000,000,000 which were recorded in the name of the above bank; and (4) it shall be recorded in the name of 30,000,000,000 won before and after embezzlement 1; and (3) it shall be recorded in the name of 16:6:3.3.

From the so-called "Habitual Fraud", the point of habitual embezzlement is as follows: Article 3(1)3 of the Special Economic Act; Articles 351 and 347(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)3 of the Special Economic Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 231 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; Articles 35 of the same Act provides that the above investigation documents shall be subject to punishment; Articles 35(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Articles 35 and 355(2) of the same Act provides that the above crimes shall be subject to punishment of imprisonment with labor among the crimes of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust; Articles 37 and 58(2) of the Criminal Act provide that the above crimes shall be subject to punishment.

Article 3 of the Special Economic Crimes Act provides that if the sum of the amount of profit of each of the crimes specified in the above Articles of the Criminal Act is all included in the above Article of the Act, the public prosecutor shall punish the crime of habitual fraud, occupational embezzlement, and occupational breach of trust by including all of all of the crimes, and accordingly, the amount acquired by the defendant exceeds one billion won, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the above Article of the Act, a public prosecution is instituted pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the above Article of the Act, but (Article 3 of the Act provides that the applicable provisions of the indictment provides that profits acquired by the defendant shall be KRW 997,679,030, while the name of the crime is stated together with occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement, it is not clear that the purport thereof is as above, but it is not clear that the above Article 3 of the Act provides that the crime of occupational breach of trust or the amount of profit shall be calculated for each of the crimes specified in the above Article of the Criminal Act or the amount of profit, and it shall not be deemed that the crime of occupational breach of trust is included in the above provision 100 billion won.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)