beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
Punishment for B shall be determined as six months.
Reasons
1. In the crime of taking a single and continuous criminal act in breach of trust regarding the Defendant B’s claim for a single and continuous comprehensive crime, if one received money for a certain period of time is the same as the legal interest of the damage, even if there exists a considerable period between the date of receiving the money, the crime shall be deemed an inclusive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do4940, Jan. 21, 200). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant B received KRW 17 million from C to the end of January 2009 to the end of January 2012, etc., in total eight times in consideration of the case of providing convenience in management and supervision, such as work personnel and work management, or in the future, such as management and supervision, such as management and supervision, from the end of January 2009 to the end of January 2012, and it is recognized that there was a demand to give and receive KRW 17 million.
In light of the above legal principles as to the single comprehensive crime, since the acceptance of defendant B constitutes a case where the crime of the following kind of crime is conducted repeatedly for a single and continuous period of time and the benefit and interest of the damage is the same, the crime is considered to be a single comprehensive crime.
In such a case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since all of the accepted acts were punished as concurrent crimes by deeming them as separate crimes.
This part of the defendant's argument is justified.
2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant D, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the instant case, the elements of sentencing asserted by the Defendant were already examined during the oral proceedings of the court below, and the court below seems to have sufficiently considered the determination of the sentence against the Defendant.
In addition, this court has new contents that can change the sentencing of the defendant.