Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of two years.

A. Each sentence (the first instance judgment against Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, and first instance judgment against Defendant B: imprisonment for one year and six months, confiscation, and second instance against the Defendants: imprisonment with prison labor for each year and six months, and two months), which the lower court sentenced to the Defendants, is deemed unfair.

B. The above sentence, which Defendant A’s first instance judgment against Defendant A, is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

B The above-mentioned sentence that the second instance judgment against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

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

This Court decided to consolidate each appeal case against the judgment below Nos. 1 and 2, and the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and thus a single sentence should be imposed on the Defendants pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's and the defendants' respective arguments of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The criminal facts against the Defendants recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which are the laws and regulations on the commercial concurrence with Defendant B, apply to the crime committed by Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant B, by deceiving the victim R and receiving two physical cards from the said victim at the same time, the lower court is a separate fraud, as much as the number of the physical card issued, for the crime committed by Defendant B.