beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A, and Defendant C, in the period of three and a half years of imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the second instance judgment of mistake of facts, the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s sole criminal conduct included 29,485,550 won in double amount of 18,00,000 won from the damage caused by the Defendant’s joint criminal conduct and E and FG’s double amount of KRW 18,00,000. Therefore, the acquittal should be pronounced on the part of double amount of KRW 18,00,000, which is included in double amount of KRW 18,000. 2) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (No. 1: imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, and 2: imprisonment of 0 months) is unreasonable.
B. The first instance court's punishment against Defendant B (as to the crime No. 9-B and No. 11-b. of the original decision, 8 months of imprisonment, and 2-b. of the judgment, 4 million won of fine) is excessively unreasonable.
C. The punishment of the defendant C 1 and C (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and 3 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
The second sentence (five months of imprisonment) of the FG accused is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants A and C prior to the determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.
This Court jointly deliberated on the appeal cases against Defendant A against the first, second, and third, the first, and third, the judgment of the court below against Defendant C. Since each of the offenses described in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes, the sentence shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.
In this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants can no longer be maintained.
However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is subject to the judgment of this court, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the second instance court’s payment of KRW 21,507,500 and KRW 2,270,000, out of the amount of damage caused by Defendant’s single criminal act, and the amount of KRW 2,50,000, which was settled with a new card.