A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Each court below's punishment (the first court's judgment: 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 court's judgment: 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

This court held two appeals cases against the defendant jointly and tried by the two original judgments, and each offense in the decision of the original court is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part against the defendant in the first and second original judgment cannot be maintained any more.

As such, there is a ground for ex officio reversal as above, the part against the defendant in the first and second judgments pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing shall be reversed, and the following decision shall be rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court against the defendant is the same as 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. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of conflict and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the fact that the defendant's mistake in sentencing is recognized under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is favorable.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished several times as a crime of the same fraud, including punishment, and the criminal records of repeated crimes in the judgment of the court below are caused by the fraud of the same veterinary act as this case, the crime is not very good due to the crime committed against the intellectual disabled who is the socially weak, or by using it, and the amount of fraud is not less than KRW 27 million in total.