Defendant .

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination, the judgment of the court below was rendered separately, and each appeal was filed, and this court decided to concurrently deliberate on each of the above appeal cases. Since each of the offenses of the court below is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, as such, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance except for compensation order and the judgment of the court of second instance

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court below except for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows,

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 25(1)1, Article 31(1), Article 31(2), and Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for Compensation Orders and Sentence of Provisional Execution (for compensation applicants, the crime of this case is an unspecified and multiple crimes. The crime of this case is highly poor since it harms the safety and trust of transactions through the Internet.