(a) Method of judgment of the amount of profit prescribed in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

B. Whether the relative precedent is applied to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

A. Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is not a provision to punish the amount of profit as a crime of violation of the same Article by aggregating all the amounts of each single criminal act prescribed in the same Article of the Criminal Act, but a provision to punish the amount of profit by calculating the amount of profit by each type of crime or each type of crime prescribed in the same Article of the Criminal Act, only if the amount falls under the same Article.

B. Even in the case of violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the provisions of Article 328 of the Criminal Act are applied as

Article 328 of the Criminal Code, Article 3 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic

Defendant

Defendant

Cheongju District Court (88 Gohap95) in the first instance trial

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The prosecution of this case against the defendant's non-indicted 1 and non-indicted 2 in violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the fraud against non-indicted 3, non-indicted 4 and non-indicted 5

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

However, prior to the determination of the above reasons for appeal, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes"), which provides for the above facts of crime, aggravated punishment according to the prescribed amount of profit. If the aggregate amount of profit constitutes the amount prescribed in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it shall not be deemed that all of the crimes are punished as one violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but it shall not be punished by the above provision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by calculating the amount of profit according to the specific crimes or the number of crimes as stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are less than 0, and if the above facts of fraud are less than 0,000, it shall not be charged separately by each victim, and if the above facts of fraud are less than 0,000,000 won by the statement of the indictment of this case.

Accordingly, a party member is reversed the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after the pleading.

On February 20, 1975, the Defendant was a person engaged in the operation of ordinary deposit machines from around January 13, 1987, when he entered the office-based exchange of Korea-Japan Bank Cheongju branch. In the event that the customer does so while he does so, he is willing to return only cancellation money to the customer without de facto cancellation procedure and receive the remaining amount when he pays it, by using the fact that he can obtain a lot of interest income at the maturity time. On June 1, 1987, the Defendant got off the money from the victim Nonindicted 6 (year 52) at the office-based branch of Korea-Japan Bank Cheongju-si on the first day of June 20, 1987, and 200,000 won from the cancellation money and paid the remaining monthly payment from 7.8 million won from the expiration date of 7.8 billion won from the victim's account number to the expiration date of 1.88 billion won from the victim's account number to the end of 1.8888 billion won from the victim's account number.

The gist of evidence presented by a member is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, except for deletion of each part of the written statement made by Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5 in preparation of a judicial police assistant in the summary of the evidence at the time of the original trial, since it is the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, it is cited as it is in accordance

In the judgment of the defendant, the crime of defraudation against the victim non-indicted 8 in the judgment of the court below shall be comprehensively taken into account the following circumstances: Article 3 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act; and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be applicable to each victim, including each victim. Since each of the above crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that punishment shall be imposed for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases where punishment is too heavy by the punishment is imposed under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant is an initial crime and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent, the court below shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 months prior to the punishment of the defendant under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that when the customer cancels the contract in the middle of the re-building savings without the de facto cancellation procedure, the defendant is aware that he would receive the money by using the fact that he can obtain a lot of interest income at the time of maturity when he pays the remaining amount. On September 18, 1987, the defendant knew that he would receive and transfer the money if he paid the cancellation money to the customer and paid the money to the non-indicted 3 at the office of the office of the Han-si branch in the Han-si branch in the Han-si branch in the Han-si branch in the Han-si branch in the Han-si branch in which the victim was located, and there is a profit when he pays the cancellation money to the non-indicted 3 and pays the remaining amount until the maturity. Therefore, the defendant makes a false statement that he would receive and pay the money if he paid the money and paid the monthly payment, and then he then, he shall receive the money from the non-indicted 2, 25,000 won from the victim and then shall receive it from the non-indicted 23, 4.

Therefore, in full view of each statement written by Nonindicted 3, 2, 1, 4, and 5 as to the preparation of the judicial police assistant, the above Nonindicted 3 and 2 were sentenced to the punishment of the defendant as the number of the defendant's non-indicted 7's non-indicted 1's spouse, and the above non-indicted 1's spouse's non-indicted 7's spouse's non-indicted 8's relative, and the above non-indicted 4's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's relative relationship with each other's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3, 2, 1's non-indicted 36's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's complaint.

Therefore, since the facts charged by the defendant against the above victims in this case had been revoked prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, it was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)