The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The seized Aphone X 1 (No. 1), book.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below that sentenced three years to the defendant is too unreasonable.

The court of appeals for ex officio determination shall decide without any need to decide whether the grounds for ex officio examination are legitimate, if the grounds for appeal are submitted, or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal. However, with respect to any matter other than the grounds for ex officio examination, it shall be limited to the case where the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, unless it is stated in the petition of appeal or otherwise,

A judgment may be rendered ex officio.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). In light of the above legal principles, the health care unit, the defendant, in an investigation agency, and the court below, denied each of the crimes of this case, and led to a confession made in the first instance.

However, there is confession of the defendant as to the facts charged.

Even in cases where it is difficult to recognize the credibility of a confession in consideration of all the circumstances, such as whether the contents of the confession themselves have objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the background leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, etc., the credibility of the confession shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10277 Decided November 14, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10277, Nov. 14, 2013). In addition, in a case where a single criminal intent is and the method of crime is identical, each victim’s legal interest is independent, and thus, the total amount is not a single crime, and multiple types of frauds are not established independently for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2390, Jul. 22, 2004). Accordingly, each victim is a victim.