A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is heavy in that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, even though there were a number of criminal punishments, including punishment, such as punishment, suspension of execution, etc., for the same crime.

Even though the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud was a significant amount of KRW 42.5 million, the damage was not recovered.

Considering these points, it is necessary to punish the accused strictly.

However, the first instance court's punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant has agreed smoothly with the victim of special larceny when it comes to the trial; and (b) the Defendant's age, character and conduct, the environment, the background and details of the crime, the result and the circumstances after the crime.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts and summary of evidence against the defendant recognized by the court are the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (or, inclusive, the point of fraud, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny);

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

1. The reasons for the reversal of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances in light of the reasons for the reversal of sentencing.