[2016 order 217] The part concerning the crime of the case shall be reversed.

The defendant's judgment [2016 High Order 2017.

2. Determination

A. The judgment [2016 High Order 217] The Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims of each of the instant crimes until the first instance trial, and there was a history of criminal punishment several times prior to each of the instant crimes, and each of the instant crimes was committed without being aware of, even though it was during the period of suspended execution due to fraud.

However, the Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case for the first time, and is in profoundly against the Defendant, and the victim D returned 180 copies of the charnel to the victim D in the trial, and the considerable part of the damage seems to have been restored.

In addition, each of the crimes of this case is the concurrent crimes between fraud for which judgment has become final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, as stated in all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is to be rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39

In addition, in full view of various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, means and consequence thereof, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment [2016 Highest 899] The Defendant recognized the instant crime and closely reflects the instant crime.

However, the Defendant led the instant crime, and even though having acquired most of the profits therefrom, it did not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial, and did not endeavor to recover the damage.

In addition, the defendant has a record of criminal punishment at least ten times, including two times of punishment for a crime of double race.