The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year, six months, and four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court rendered each of the judgment, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold a joint trial. The first and the judgment of the second court rendered each of the offenses against the defendant are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the first instance except the compensation order and the judgment of the

3. As such, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the compensation order portion (personal and dismissed portion) and the judgment of the court of second instance excluding the above-mentioned ex officio reversal, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, are reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The grounds for sentencing of Articles 347(1) and 350(1) of the Criminal Act for the pertinent provision of criminal facts and for the choice of punishment for each of the victims [including each victim for the victims other than the victim AG], and the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the punishment of concurrent crimes with imprisonment are as follows: (a) the Defendant committed a crime against a large number of victims; (b) the amount of damage exceeds KRW 95 million in total; (c) the Defendant was habitually informed to and was guilty of fraud; (d) the damage was not recovered; and (e) the method of the crime was either intelligent and defective.