Defendant .

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant's ex officio determination were rendered, and the defendant filed each appeal against them, and the court decided to hold the above appeal together with other appeals cases.

However, among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, each of the remaining crimes except for the crimes of 2018 Godan499 and each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the crimes of 2018 Godan499 and the rejection of application for compensation at the time of the original

3. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the criminal records having been punished for the same kind of crime, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant, and the equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and other various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing on this part is justified.

4. Conclusion 1 of the lower judgment, the Defendant’s appeal on the part of the 2018 Highest 499 case is with merit. Accordingly, the lower judgment of the first instance is determined in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.