(a) The number of crimes of fraud and methods of entering into facts charged in a case where deception has been conducted in the same manner with respect to several victims in a single and the same manner;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be said that the victim or the amount of damage was specified in a crime;

A. In the case of fraud, in a case where a deceptive act is committed against several victims, each of the property is acquired by deception, the crime is not a single comprehensive one crime, even if the method of crime is identical, but a single crime is established for each victim. In such a case, the facts charged must be stated so that the amount of damage by each victim and each victim can be specified.

(b) The case holding that the victim or the amount of damage cannot be said to have been specified in the content that "the person who acquired the money by deception by selling reproductive products equivalent to the average daily amount from the customers in the name of the victim during a certain period of time."

Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No5841 delivered on February 16, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty on the following facts by citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. In other words, the defendant, as a department store food department vice head, sold reproductive products such as walk walk and walk walk walk walk and walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In the case of fraud, in case of deception by deception against several victims, each of the property is acquired by deception, even if the criminal intent is a single crime and the method of the crime is the same, it shall not be deemed to be a single crime, but one of the crimes shall be established by each victim, and in such case, the facts charged shall be stated so that the amount of damage can be specified by each victim and each victim, and the fact that "the amount of the damage was acquired by deception by selling reproductive products equivalent to the average daily amount of damage from each victim and each victim during a given period shall not be deemed to have been specified."

Thus, the criminal facts against the defendant of this case cannot be said to have specifically identified the amount of damage with the victim in the part on the remaining customers except the above-mentioned persons.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the premise that the whole facts charged are constituted one crime by combining the whole facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the specification of fraud or by misapprehending the legal principles on comprehensive one crime, and thus, it cannot be exempted from reversal. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out this error.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)