A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years and a short term of one year and four months.

seizure.

Each sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of 1 year and 10 months, short of 1 year and 4 months, confiscation, and second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of 4 months and short of 2 months) is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against all of the judgment below, and this court decided to hold the two appeals together.

Since each of the judgment below's crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

Thus, 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 it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to 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 Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Articles 2 and 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act, which are illegal;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below under Articles 25(1), 31(1), (2), and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Compensation Orders and Declaration of Provisional Execution Sentence, the defendant can be found to have acquired 12,00,000 won from M who is the applicant for compensation and 39,70,000 won from E who is the applicant for compensation in collusion with those who are not the applicant for compensation. Thus, the defendant is a joint joint and several liability joint and several liability applicant for compensation, who is the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation.