beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for up to eight months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and found that each crime of fraud was established by the sequence of crime list, which constitutes a substantive concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determined the punishment for the Defendant within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes.
However, in the case of fraud, if the money is acquired by deception through several times for the same victim, the intention of the crime is a single and the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established.
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was operating a restaurant, and the victim was operating a “E restaurant” at the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that he came to know of the fact that he got to know of the fact that he got to know of the fact that he got to know of the need for money, and that the Defendant borrowed money from September 9, 2016 to October 7, 2016, the fact that he borrowed money from the victim for six months during a month from September 9, 2016 to October 7, 2016 is recognized.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant borrowed money from the victim six times in a month in which he was in arrears, and the interval is very close to that time, and it seems that the defendant used personal relations with the victim who was known to ordinary people and borrowed money under several circumstances at that time to face with the victim. Thus, it is reasonable to view such act of the defendant as being committed by the same criminal method under the single criminal intent against the same victim, and it constitutes a single comprehensive crime.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct.