The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term.

A. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and a short of six months, and the second instance: the imprisonment for a maximum of six months and a short of three months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 1 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

This Court held that each appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated and reviewed.

However, since each of the concurrent defendants' crimes stated in the judgment below is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the concurrent crimes should be punished within the scope of punishment subject to aggravated punishment under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced two punishments on each of the above crimes (the judgment of the court below No. 1 excluded the portion of the compensation order) was no longer maintained.

In addition, “X’s statement” included in the summary of the evidence of the first instance judgment constitutes “written statement prepared by a person other than the defendant” as prescribed by the main text of Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, X’s writing or signature or seal should be written (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2742, Feb. 26, 199, etc.). In such a case, the above written statement is merely a document written by using a computer, etc. and is not a document written by X, and its signature or seal cannot be used as evidence as well as it cannot be used as evidence because it is not a document written by a person other than the defendant.

Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility of evidence of professional evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the said statement was considered as evidence of guilt.

In this respect, the judgment of the first instance can no longer be maintained.

3. The part of the judgment of the court below No. 1 excluding the compensation order, and the judgment of the court below No. 2 is reversed ex officio. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the error of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.