beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
A limited company which has been seized.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the legal principles or omitting judgment requested a prosecutor to sentence confiscation of the articles seized by the defendant, but the court below did not sentence confiscation of the above seized articles. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act or omitting the decision of confiscation.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the accused and prosecutor ex officio, the facts constituting a violation of each of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act against the accused are as follows: “The accused conspired with the accused and transferred 2 or 12 copies of the means of electronic financial transactions, such as passbook B and C at one time to the named in the name of the accused.” Even if the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is the same passbook and cash card, one crime is established for each of the above means of access. However, each of the above acts of transferring multiple means of access at one time constitutes a single act of violating several crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus constitutes a commercial concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act. Since the lower court erred by omitting this provision in the application of statutes, the part of the judgment of the lower court against the accused cannot be maintained by treating each of the crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the remaining embezzlement as a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
However, the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles or omission of judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. The prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principle