beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for five years, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) Of the daily table of crime No. 1 attached to the judgment below, the company bank card arrears of KRW 2,627,000 and No. 6,842,000 among the No. 3 attached to the judgment below is overlapped. Of the 19 attached to the judgment below, KRW 5 million and KRW 5 million and KRW 5 million and KRW 5 million are overlapped with the change of the trade name of the lending financial institution.
Therefore, duplicate indictments should be deleted from criminal facts.
In addition, among the attached crimes No. 3 year table of the judgment below, KRW 3 million loans to the New-ju Saemaul Bank of Korea, KRW 13 million loans to Samsung Life Insurance and KRW 24 million loans to the interesting country life insurance among the annexed crimes No. 8 of the judgment below, and the attached crimes No. 3 year of the judgment below, KRW 13 million loans and KRW 24 million loans to the interesting country.
Therefore, this part should also be deleted from criminal facts.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of or misunderstanding of the legal principles on facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (based on fraud)) Defendant B only participated in the Plaintiff’s L-related crime No. 1 and No. 2 of the daily list of crimes attached to the judgment below, and the Defendant B’s act of committing the instant crime in collusion with other accomplices (hereinafter “Defendant B’s assertion”) which was committed after moving his wife from former to Daegu on November 2015, but did not result in the rest of the crime committed by Defendant B in collusion with other accomplices (hereinafter “Defendant B’s assertion”). Even though the instant crime in this case was not caused by the creation of a damp wall, the judgment of the court below that recognized the habitualness of fraud against Defendant B was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “B.2 of the judgment”).
2. Determination
A. An ex officio determination prosecutor against the Defendants in this court against the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd., No. 1 and No. 2 of the attached Table 1 of the indictment against the Defendants.