beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A 1-D in the judgment of the court below.
(i)a)an offence;
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and C are so unfair that they are sentenced to each of the above Defendants (Defendant A: 1-d.1 of the judgment below) by imprisonment with prison labor for two months, imprisonment for one year and four months, and imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes in Article 1 of the judgment below, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months).
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Defendant B), the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. due to the sale of Defendant B’s “I code” is in a substantive competition relationship established by each selling act. Since the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. and the crime of interference with business against the victimized company is not in a commercial competition relationship, res judicata of the final judgment against Defendant B does not reach the facts in the instant case. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged against Defendant B are in a relation of the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. among the facts in the said final judgment, and determined that the res judicata effect of the said final judgment constitutes the facts in the instant case, and sentenced Defendant B to the acquittal of the said final judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In a case where a number of acts falling under the name of the same crime is continuously conducted for a single and continuous period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal defendant who made a judgment of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant B of the prosecutor, and where the legal benefits from such acts are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1855, Jul. 26, 2002).