beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-finding, the Defendant, with the floor of hand, tried to scam less than the victim's scam, and did not assault the victim's back scams as stated in the facts charged in this case.
B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the records show that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Busan District Court on August 23, 2018, and the defendant's objection thereto was made on December 7, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2018 after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months at the appellate court on December 7, 2018. The crime against the defendant in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship with the above crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and is in a concurrent relationship with the above crime under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
3. The following facts or circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim expressed in an investigative agency that the defendant expressed in his/her own attempt to “slick and slick,” and that he/she was able to take the back in his/her hand at the time and place of the court below’s decision (Evidence No. 12 pages), ② the employees of the main store at the time and the victim stated that the victim reported TV in a telephone conversation with the police, and the victim reported TV, and the defendant was the head of the victim (Evidence No. 17 pages of the evidence record). ③ The victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement.