Defendant

Defendant

Park stone

Freeboard of judicial trainees;

1. Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Dahap43 decided Apr. 30, 2009; / 2. Chuncheon District Court Decision 2007 Godan963 decided Jul. 11, 2008

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance judgment

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the court of first instance is that the punishment sentenced by the court of first instance (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below

(1) Defendant

Although the Defendant was not a disguised marriage with Nonindicted Party 1, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby allowing the Defendant to enter false facts in the family register and to keep the family register in which the false facts are entered, by falsely reporting that the Defendant was a disguised marriage with Nonindicted Party 1, and by allowing the public official to make a false report on the actual marriage. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Prosecutor

The sentence (three million won of fine) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Note 1) Judgment

A. The part of the judgment of the first instance

Examining the facts that the defendant committed the larceny of this case at the same time during the period of repeated crime while having been punished six times or more for the same type of crime (five times of punishment, five times of suspended execution, one time of suspended execution), the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor for three years is the lowest sentence that can be sentenced to the defendant, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records of this case, including the defendant's age, reputation, personality and behavior, family environment, it is deemed reasonable that the court below's sentence against the defendant is proper.

B. The second instance judgment

(1) Judgment on the appeal by the defendant

Although the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below on July 11, 2008 and filed a lawful appeal, the facts that the defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of delivery of the notification of the receipt of the trial records on September 30, 2008 are apparent in the records (the defendant filed the statement of grounds for appeal on April 29, 2009), and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and the reasons for ex officio examination on the records can not be found.

(2) Determination on the Prosecutor’s appeal

Considering the fact that there is no same type of crime against the defendant, and the crime of this case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was sentenced to imprisonment of two years on September 9, 2005 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the equity should be considered in determining the punishment. In addition, considering all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records of this case, such as the defendant'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the court of first instance and the appeal by the prosecutor against the judgment of the court of second instance are without merit, they are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the court of second instance is dismissed pursuant to Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It

Judges Suhovah (Presiding Judge) and Yang-heeh

1) Since the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, two punishments must be sentenced. Thus, the judgment of the court of second instance does not