The defendant is a crime of the No. 2016 Go-Ba323, which is held by the defendant and the judgment of the court.

A. On the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the judgment of the court of second instance), the punishment of the defendant (as to the judgment of the court of second instance, the delivery of imprisonment for eight months and seized evidence No. 2) and the punishment of the court of second instance (as to the fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the second judgment of the court below on the prosecutor (the second judgment of the court below) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

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

The defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgment, respectively, and this court decided to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases.

However, each crime of the first and second original judgments against the defendant is related to a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of a prison crime under Article 38 of the Criminal Act, so the first and second original judgments are no longer maintained.

(b) consider ex officio.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years as a result of the nighttime intrusion larceny, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving), the suspension of execution on January 26, 2016 at the first time general military court of the Navy of the Navy on January 26, 2016, and on February 3, 2016.

On the other hand, the punishment for the instant crime is imposed in consideration of equity between the case where a judgment is to be rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained in this regard, since the instant crime and the Defendant’s committing the larceny No. 1 in the table of crime in the judgment of the court of first instance and the offense of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of

C. Furthermore, if the means of access is transferred ex officio in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, only one crime is established for each of the means of access. However, the act of transferring multiple means of access at once is a single act that violates several electronic financial transactions.