The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely introduced B to the victim and did not attract the victim to commit the crime of fraud between B and the instant case, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

On January 11, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months by imprisonment with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Incheon District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2019.

Since the instant crime of fraud against the Defendant is a concurrent crime provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of occupational embezzlement for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where judgment is rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The lower court, without taking into account the foregoing, rendered a sentence without considering it

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made the same assertion in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, convicted the Defendant of the charges.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

3. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit, but the above reasons for reversal of judgment against the defendant are ex officio.